Oral Answers to Questions

WALES

The Secretary of State was asked—

Antisocial Behaviour

Madeleine Moon: What recent discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues and the First Minister on antisocial behaviour in Wales.

Nick Ainger: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary recently published new guidance encouraging councils to use publicity to help to enforce individual antisocial behaviour orders.

Madeleine Moon: My local free paper, The Recorder, carries this dire warning on its front page: "Yobs will cause a death: RNLI warns 'someone will drown' in harbour". We have a problem—I have discussed it with Phil Missen, our local Royal National Lifeboat Institution organiser—with youngsters jumping 20 ft into Porthcawl harbour in front of the lifeboat as it is launched and physically and verbally abusing the lifeboat crew. What assistance can my hon. Friend offer the lifeboat crew to protect them given that my local authority is unable to confirm long-term commitment to funds for youth organisations, even the Scouts and the Guides?

Nick Ainger: I share my hon. Friend's concern about those incidents of antisocial behaviour; clearly, this case must be tackled quickly. We have given the police and local councils the tools to do that job. Between 2003 and 2006, the safer communities fund has allocated £8 million to community safety partnerships in Wales for locally determined projects aimed at tackling antisocial behaviour. Since 2003, Bridgend has received £352,000 from the fund. We have given the tools to the police and to the local councils; those powers should now be exercised and I urge Bridgend county borough council to do so.

Roger Williams: One of the recent findings of the Select Committee on Wales was that there is no agreed uniform definition of antisocial behaviour. That means that residents in my constituency who live close to rugby clubs can expect antisocial behaviour and rowdiness with no action taken against the perpetrators. What action can the Minister take on having an agreed definition of antisocial behaviour so that everybody living in Wales can expect the same service and treatment from police forces?

Nick Ainger: The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point. I would argue that the Licensing Act 2003 gives local residents the opportunity to object to the way in which licensed premises are being run, because it deals not only with what happens in the licensed premises but what happens around them. The Act gives people the opportunity to take up that matter with local police and the local authority, which is now responsible for licensing. Irrespective of whether we give a clear definition of antisocial behaviour, people know when they are experiencing it, and they should always report it and expect the authorities to react accordingly.

Albert Owen: It is right to be tough on those who make the lives of people in our communities hell through antisocial behaviour, but does my hon. Friend agree that it is also important to reward people, particularly the young, for good social behaviour? Does he further agree that it is important that when community planning for facilities is going through, young people have an input so that they feel a sense of ownership in their own community?

Nick Ainger: Yes, I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. We need to talk about the carrots as well as the sticks. Local authorities are recognising the need to provide improved youth services and improved facilities for young people as an alternative to hanging around on street corners and causing trouble for local residents.

Welsh Language Schemes

Hywel Williams: What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues and Ministers of the National Assembly for Wales on formulating and implementing central Government Departments' Welsh language schemes.

Peter Hain: The Government believe in the principle of delivering public services to people in Wales in the language of their choice. All Departments regularly review the way in which they meet this obligation.

Hywel Williams: Twelve years on from the Welsh Language Act 1993, at least five of the great Departments of State have not produced Welsh language schemes. Will the Secretary of State institute a review of the Act and show that, at least on that issue, he is not asleep?

Peter Hain: I will happily look into the matter but the hon. Gentleman knows that the Labour Government have a proud record of promoting the Welsh language, which is now in a healthier state than it has been for generations, with the number of Welsh speakers increasing continuously. I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman welcomed that. If any Departments are slipping from that high standard, I shall look into the matter.

Si�n James: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Labour party has shown itself to be the party of the Welsh language? We have record investment and more people learning Welsh. Is not it true that Members such as my hon. Friend the Member for Conwy (Mrs. Williams) have actively promoted the language and highlighted the record investment and our commitment to that important issue?

Peter Hain: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend, who is a proud Welsh speaker from the valleys of south Wales.

Chris Ruane: Da iawn.

Peter Hain: Indeed, da iawn, as my Parliamentary Private Secretary says. My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mrs. James) can speak with genuine authority on the matter, as can my hon. Friend the Member for Conwy (Mrs. Williams), who is a proud Welsh speaker from north Wales.

Michael Fabricant: Will the Secretary of State say a big diolch yn fawr to all the people who go to Welsh language schools, especially those on the Llyn peninsula? Will he remind people that not only those who are Welsh born learn Welsh but those who recognise the traditions of Wales?

Peter Hain: Yes, I will say a big diolch yn fawras big as the hon. Gentleman likesbecause the Wales Office and the Labour Government are proud of the advances that have been made in the Welsh language throughout Wales. We will continue to experience such progress as long as the Government remain in power.

Single Farm Payment

Andrew Robathan: What recent discussions he has had with the National Assembly for Wales Government on the single farm payment.

Nick Ainger: On 4 July, I met the Assembly Minister responsible for countryside matters, Carwyn Jones, and we discussed several issues, including the single payment scheme in Wales.

Andrew Robathan: I should declare that I am a farmer and in receipt of ridiculous subsidies through the common agricultural policy. As the Minister knows, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs tells us that the single farm payment is meant to make life simpler for farmers. I am not sure whether it does, but that is the way we are going. However, Wales intends to have a different scheme. How can that be right? If something is good for me if I farm in Herefordshire, surely it must also be good if I farm across the border in Monmouthshire. Will the Minister explain matters and what the scheme will do for Welsh hill farmers?

Nick Ainger: There is a difference in the single farm payment's calculation in England and in Wales. In England, the system ultimately depends on a single, flat-rate, area payment, starting with historic payments. In Wales, we are going to stick with historic payments because Wales has so many small farms, especially in the uplands. When the discussions were taking place, it was felt that a single farm payment based on historic payments would be the best way to continue the support for Wales's small rural farms.

Lembit �pik: The Minister knows that, in an effort to remain financially viable, many farmers are diversifying into other activities, including motor cycle off-road sports. Will he confirm that farmers will not jeopardise their single farm payments by allowing those off-road activities on their land? Will he also confirm that the promised end-of-year review will consider the rights of motor sports enthusiasts, including motor cycle off-road enthusiasts, and the economic pressures that farmers face?

Nick Ainger: I think that I can help the hon. Gentleman on the issue. Under recently updated guidance, motor sports may take place on up to 28 days during the nominated 10-month period in addition to the remaining two months of the year. The updated guidance takes on board representations from motor sports interests and is an example of the Government listening to industry.

Mr. Speaker: I call Jerry Wiggin.

Bill Wiggin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I shall answer for him.
	Wales is using the historic method for determining single farm payments, so why cannot Welsh farmers have an interim payment until the Rural Payments Agency computers are made to work?

Nick Ainger: The payments system is on target and Welsh farmers will begin receiving their single farm payments at the beginning of the window, which is December 2005.

Tax and Benefits

Betty Williams: What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on financial support through the tax and benefits systems to parents in Wales.

Nick Ainger: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I regularly hold discussions with ministerial colleagues on a range of issues, including support to parents in Wales through the tax and benefits systems. Far more parents in Wales are benefiting from the financial support under the working tax credit and child tax credit than under any preceding income-related financial support system. In 200304, more than 220,000 in-work families with children in Wales were benefiting from tax credits, with an average award of 2,792.

Betty Williams: My hon. Friend will be aware that families in Wales have widely welcomed the tax credit system, which has definitely been a contributory factor in lifting families out of poverty. However, many families are still experiencing hardship caused by errors made by Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs when calculating their entitlement. Will my hon. Friend undertake to have further discussions with his Treasury colleagues to ensure that a way is found to help those families out of their difficulties?

Nick Ainger: My hon. Friend is right to highlight the great benefit of the tax credit system to families in Wales. In her own constituency, 5,000 in-work families are in receipt of tax credits, and the average amount involved in her constituency is 3,080 per family. In relation to the problems caused by overpayment, the Government recognise the difficulties that have been caused by administrative problems in the tax credit system, but that should not detract from the fact that millions of families across Britain are much better off as a result of the system.
	The Paymaster General has announced a series of measures to build on the reforms that we have already introduced, including measures to streamline the procedures for recipients to inform Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs of changes in their income, and to simplify the information provided to families. She has also announced a review of changes to the procedures for dealing with disputed awards, and I am sure that she will respond to the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Conwy (Mrs. Williams), which I shall draw to her attention.

Wayne David: Following what the Minister has just said, does he agree that, although there have been problems in the tax credit system, we have to keep things in perspective? We need to recognise that the tax credit system is probably the most effective means that we have of tackling child poverty.

Nick Ainger: Indeed. Before 1997, when this Government first came to power, one in every three babies in Britain was born into poverty. Under the previous Conservative Government, the number of children growing up in households in which no one had a job rose to almost 20 per cent. We have not only had great economic success in creating 2 million jobs since 1997; we have also made work pay, and taken more than 1 million children out of poverty. That is a success.

Bill Wiggin: Wales has the highest rate of child poverty in the UK, affecting one in every three children. Yet Citizens Advice has recently condemned the tax credit system for being subject to completely unacceptable errors. One in three recipients have been overpaid and pushed into deeper poverty when forced to repay the money. What will the Minister do to stop the failures of the tax credit system putting even more pressure on struggling Welsh families?

Nick Ainger: As I have already said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Conwy (Mrs. Williams), the Government are already tackling those administrative problems. Moreover, it is worth noting what Citizens Advice said in its report:
	We firmly support tax credits as a vehicle for directing substantial extra money towards lower income families, and we want the system to work effectively for all who are entitled to the extra help.
	That is something that those families are getting now, and that they never did when the hon. Gentleman's party was in power.

Bill Wiggin: A man from Bridgend reported that he had received a bill for 4,000 following overpayment of child tax credits, despite the fact that that tax credit agency admitted that he had provided the correct information at every point. Another man, from Abergele, was paid 400 too much each month, despite making numerous phone calls to query the amount that the family were being paid. Nearly 2 billion of the tax credits paid out over the past year were overpayments, and the Government are hounding people into a financial nightmare. How can the Minister expect to improve the standard of living for children in Wales if this continues?

Nick Ainger: As I said in response to an earlier question, it is clear that substantial errors have been made, and the Government do not deny that fact. The parliamentary ombudsman's report and the Citizens Advice report identified serious errors. The Government have a duty, however, to try to reclaim overpayments where it is reasonable to do so. Anyone who disputes whether they should repay such an overpayment has a procedure to follow. The Paymaster General has given assurances that she is considering those disputes procedures.

National Assembly (List Members)

Mark Tami: What plans he has to introduce legislation affecting the position of list Members in the National Assembly for Wales.

Peter Hain: The White Paper Better Governance for Wales, promises to prevent constituency candidates standing as list Members in line with our manifesto commitments.

Mark Tami: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. I am sure that he has seen the Leanne Wood guide to being a good Assembly list Member in today's Western Mail, in which she advocates avoiding casework but using the considerable budgets to employ staff only two to three days a week so that they can spend the rest of the time on political activity, and of course Leanne's golden rule:
	On receipt of every invitation, ask 'How can my attendance at this event further the aims of Plaid Cymru?' If the answer is 'very little' or 'not at all', then a pro forma letter of decline should be in order.
	Is not it time that we had an urgent inquiry into the role of these list Members, who are unelected and unaccountable?

Peter Hain: The answer is yes. Plaid Cymru list Members have now been caught red-handed abusing the system in the Assembly. The Presiding Officer should have a proper inquiry into the abuse of taxpayers' money by Plaid Cymru list Members. These instructions from Assembly Member Leanne Wood are a consistent abuse. I will read out another example

Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps the Secretary of State can allow the Assembly to read about the matter.

Adam Price: As we all know, politics[Hon. Members: Apologise.] May I speak? Politics is a much-maligned profession, and it is usually other politicians who do the maligning. May I suggest to the Secretary of State that his constant disparaging remarks about Assembly Members will make it difficult for us to encourage people of calibre of all parties to put their names forward for the next Assembly elections? Is that what he wants?

Peter Hain: I am absolutely astonished. The hon. Gentleman is defending the behaviour of Plaid Cymru list Assembly Members who have abused the system. I will read out another section from the advice:
	We need to be thinking much more creatively as to how we better use staff budgets for furthering the aims of the party.
	Those are the equivalent of Commons staff budgets applied to the Assembly. I and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will be taking the Government of Wales Bill through the House in the next year or so, and if the Assembly does not to tighten the rules on the behaviour of list Members and the abuse of their allowances, I might have to take powers under the Bill to do so myself.

Nia Griffith: Given the utter contempt that Leanne Wood is showing for constituents by describing casework that a Plaid Cymru regional Assembly Member did for 2,500 constituents as a waste of time, because canvassing returns showed that few of them were inclined to vote for Plaid Cymru, will the Secretary of State order a thorough investigation into the role of regional AMs, and seek to establish whether their offices and staff are a waste of public money?

Peter Hain: I am tempted to read out even more damaging quotes, but I will spare the House. I agree very much with my hon. Friend that this is an abuse of the system. It vindicates exactly the Government's policy of banning list Members from standing in constituencies. They must make a choice. Taxpayers will want to know that list members are not abusing the Assembly's resources, because ultimately those resources are voted by the House of Commons. I think it is time that Plaid Cymru, Liberal Democrat and Conservative Members stopped defending this outrageous behaviour by Assembly list members.

Small Firms' Organisations

Henry Bellingham: What recent representations he has received from small firms' organisations in Wales on central Government regulation.

Peter Hain: Ihave regular discussions with small business organisations in Wales. The latest took place as recently as last Friday, when I attended a Cardiff chamber of commerce function. There was delight at the buoyant state of the economy under this Government.

Henry Bellingham: Is the Secretary of State aware that all the small organisations representing firms in Wales are united in their opposition to the United Kingdom giving up its opt-out from the working time directive? They believe that if we give it up, many jobs will be put at risk. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Labour MEPs have voted to give up the opt-out? What is his view?

Peter Hain: My view is the view of the Government, as the hon. Gentleman knows very well. Last year, when he asked me the very same question, I told him that we had seen 19 consecutive months of business growth in Wales I am delighted to tell him that we have now seen 27 consecutive months of business growth in Wales. Answering his questions is a real treat.

Ian Lucas: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in towns such as Wrexham, small business is doing very well thanks to innovative and exciting projects such as the new e-business incubator. We are changing the face of employment in Wrexham, so that more people are self-employed and more people are doing well for themselves. Is that not welcome, and is it not about time we started talking Wales up rather than down?

Peter Hain: Yes, Wales is now doing better than it has for generations as a result of the economic stability established by the Government. There is a record number of jobs, more than there have ever been in our history, and business start-ups are taking place all the time, in Wrexham as elsewhere. That will ensure that the growth that has continued for the last eight years of the   Labour Government will continue in the future. That is the future of Wales, which is striving to be world-classas opposed to its miserable state under the Tories.

Police (Misconduct Allegations)

David Davies: What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Home Affairs on the handling of misconduct allegations in police authorities in Wales.

Nick Ainger: My right hon. Friend and I have regular discussions with ministerial colleagues. Investigations of misconduct are internal matters for police authorities to determine according to their own procedures and protocols.

David Davies: The Minister will be well aware that 13 police officers remain suspended at a cost of around 300,000 a year. Other cases have collapsed owing to lack of evidence. The clerk to the North Wales police authority has been cleared of misconduct by the courts, but has still not been reinstated. Does the Minister agree that the situation is wholly unsatisfactory, is costing large amounts of taxpayers' money and is reducing the number of police officers available to deal with the rise in crime for which his Government are responsible?

Nick Ainger: It would obviously be wrong for me to comment on any case that is currently under investigation, but the hon. Gentleman specifically mentioned the clerk to the North Wales police authority. Mr. Peter Bolton was offered reinstatement earlier this month, but is currently taking legal advice before deciding whether to accept. It is possible that the matter could be taken to court, and it would therefore be wholly inappropriate for me to comment.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Before I call the next question, I must call for order in the Chamber. [Hon. Members: Hear, hear.] I am glad I have so much support.

Jobcentre Plus Offices

Elfyn Llwyd: What discussions he has had with colleagues in the Cabinet and in the National Assembly for Wales on the economic consequences of job losses in Wales caused by the closure of Jobcentre Plus offices; and if he will make a statement.

Peter Hain: I have had regular discussions. In order to release resources to frontline services, Jobcentre Plus offices are being modernised in Wales to deliver more flexible services.

Elfyn Llwyd: Is the Minister aware that 70 per cent. of jobcentre job cuts in Wales will fall within the objective 1 area? Is he aware that a few months ago my hon. Friend the Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) and I went to see the then Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West and Hessle (Alan Johnson)? We had to produce a map of Wales to show him how the service would be decimated by the proposed cuts.
	Those jobs are vital in the objective 1 areas. Time and again, the Minister says that he fights Wales's corner. When did he fight Wales's corner in this regard? Did he lie down like his supine colleagues in the National Assembly Government? When will he stand up for Wales?

Peter Hain: I stand up for Wales every day of the week. That should be compared with Plaid Cymru, which wants to take Wales out of the United Kingdom and condemn it to misery. I should remind the hon. Gentleman that a new 300-plus-seat contact centre in Bangoran objective 1 area near his constituencywill open next year. Staff numbers at the contact centre in Bridgendanother objective 1 areaare doubling from 150 to 300. The truth is that the picture that he paints is completely distorted, as is every other allegation that Plaid Cymru makes about Wales.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked

Engagements

Kelvin Hopkins: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 20 July.

Tony Blair: Before listing my engagements, I know that the whole House will join me in sending our condolences to the families of the three British soldiers who lost their lives in Iraq over the weekend. They were doing a vital and heroic job in helping that country to democracy, and we can be very proud of them.
	This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, and in addition to my duties in the House I will have further such meetings later today.

Kelvin Hopkins: My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) raised with the Leader of the House at last week's business questions the disgracefully low pay and poor conditions endured by our parliamentary cleaners. This morning, my hon. Friend and I and other Members visited a picket line of our striking cleaners to show our solidarity with them. Will my right hon. Friend take time to ensure that representations are made to the House authorities to reach a fair and satisfactory conclusion to this dispute?

Tony Blair: My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House raised this issue on colleagues' behalf at the meeting of the House of Commons Commission on Monday. Ultimately, this is a matter for the House authorities. The dispute is a commercial matter, but I understand that the House authorities continue to work with the contractors to seek a satisfactory outcome for everybody concerned.

Michael Howard: I join the Prime Minister in the condolences that he expressed over the loss of our servicemen in Iraq. The thousands of men and women who daily risk their lives on our behalf are constantly in our minds, and we must never take what they do for granted.
	May I ask the Prime Minister about the progress being made in the four areas of action in response to the tragedy of 7 July that he outlined a week ago? I welcome the meeting that we had with Muslim leaders yesterday. Can he now set out more details of the taskforce being established to take matters forward?

Tony Blair: I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for coming, with the leader of the Liberal Democrats, to yesterday's meeting. Over the next few days, those who were present at that meeting will work with the Home Secretary and the Foreign Secretary to establish a network of people who will go out into the community and take the very clear message about the mainstream Muslim community and its views throughout the country. They have also agreed to a meeting with the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Sir Ian Blair, who raised at yesterday's meeting a very important point: the desire to make sure that sufficient numbers of people are recruited into the police from the Muslim community. He also expressed his very strong sense that, just as the police have considerably improvedI think that everyone will accept thistheir community relations over the past few years, over the next few years we need to ensure that that finds its response and echo in people from the Muslim community joining the police force, and being willing to serve in it.

Michael Howard: Last week, the Prime Minister also said that the Government would look urgently at strengthening procedures to exclude people from entering the UK who might incite hatred or act contrary to the public good, and at how those already here might be more easily deported. What progress has been made in that area and does he agree that there is room for greater use of existing powers to ban people whose presence here is not conducive to the public good?

Tony Blair: Yes, I do agree with that. It is very important that people understand that we are a tolerant and decent country, but that the rights that we give to people here should not be abused. I am sure that that is the overwhelming sentiment of the country, so we do need to look at broadening the list of grounds for exclusion, and at using existing exclusion powers more broadly. The Home Secretary is going to make an oral statement on this issue shortly and we are also attempting to conclude memorandums of understanding with countries to which we want to return those whom we want to deport.
	Part of the problem has been that, even if we wish to deport people, we have sometimes been stopped from doing so on the ground that the country to which they are to be deported may not pay sufficient regard to their human rights. However, we are trying to conclude a series of memorandums of understanding with those countries and I understand that one was concluded this morning with Jordan, which will help us in respect of certain cases.

Michael Howard: The Prime Minister also referred a week ago to the need for international action, on which he has just touched. Since then, there has been a particular focus on Pakistan, where the Government and President Musharraf have pledged their full support in the fight against terrorism. Will the Prime Minister update the House on the work that is being carried out with the   Government of Pakistan, including keeping the madrassahs under closer scrutiny?

Tony Blair: Yes, I can. I have spoken to President Musharraf about it and there is a real willingness and desire on the part of the Pakistani Government to deal with the madrassahs that are preaching this type of extremism. I think that we all know that the roots go very deep and are not always to be found in our own country, but in other countries, too. We are also looking into the possibility of holding a conference that would bring together some of the main countries that are areas of concern and that have been closely involved in these issues in order to take concerted action across the world to try to root out this type of extremist teaching.
	About 26 countries have suffered from al-Qaeda and its associated networks since 1993. Obviously, there is a huge well of support and understanding for the problems that we have recently faced in this country. We need to be very clear that, although the terrorists will use all sorts of issues to justify what they do, the roots of it go very deep and are often not to be found in this country alone, so international action is also necessary.

Michael Howard: I am grateful to the Prime Minister for that answer and he will know that I entirely agree with the sentiments that he has just expressed. I also welcome the discussions that took place with the Home Secretary on Monday about counter-terrorism legislation and the Government's agreement to our suggestion that their new legislation should be considered separately from the issue of control orders. Will the Government also give further consideration to our proposals, which they have previously rejected, to allow the use of intercept evidence in court?

Tony Blair: I am very happy to go back and consult the security services and the police about that. My own view has always been that if we can use intercept evidence, we should, because of the obvious value that it can provide in certain cases. The difficulty is that, up to now, we have been advised by the security services that the disadvantages outweigh the benefits. However, in the light of what has happened, it is obviously sensible to go back and consult them again. It is not an issue on which there is an objection of principle to using such evidence. On the contrary, as a matter of principle, I would prefer to use it rather than not use it, but we have to take account of our advice.
	I understand that we are going to have a meeting next week about the new legislation. I am pleased at the progress that has been made in co-operation with the Opposition and we will have a further opportunity to run through some of these issues again. I will make sure that we can provide an update then. It is the right approach to try to take action in every single one of these related spheres: in respect of the legislation, we must ensure that it is tightened, where necessary; in respect of those who preach and incite hatred, we want enhanced ability to deport them where they are not British citizens; in respect of international action; and in respect also of our own Muslim community. We are now moving forward in the right direction on a series of fronts. Once again, I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his support, as it has been very important to send out a unified signal to the country.

Michael Howard: I look forward to our discussions next week. The Prime Minister will know that, just two years ago, the Newton report pointed out that the Republic of Ireland is the only country with a ban as extensive as ours on the use of intercept evidence and I look forward to discussing those matters with him further next week.
	Yesterday, The New York Times reported that, less than a month before 7 July, the joint terrorism analysis centre had concluded that
	at present there is not a group with both the current intent and the capability to attack the UK.
	Is there anything that the Prime Minister can say to put that report in context and, in the light of that report, is there any action that he intends to take to reassure people?

Tony Blair: Obviously, JTAC staff have to make up their minds according to the information that they have at any particular time. It is important to recognise that, partly through JTAC, our security services and police do an enormous amount of work in gathering information, from our own country and from all around the world. Inevitably, they have to base their judgments on the information that they receive, but I am satisfied that they do everything possible to protect our country. Although it is terrible that the terrorist attacks in London took place, it is none the less worth pointing out that, over the past few years, our security services and police have done an immense amount to protect this country. It is important to recognise that, but of course those services are looking the whole time at ways to improve their systems.
	When I visited last week, I saw for myself what an extraordinarily motivated and committed group the JTAC people are. They work literally around the clock to do their best to protect our country. Obviously, they have to make their assessments on the information that they have at the time, but it is important to make one other point as well. I shall not comment on intelligence material that is sometimes discussed in the newspapers, but I point out that JTAC staff all the time have to strike a balance in any judgment about an individual that they make. One thing is for sure: if they make a wrong assessment, they can become embroiled in arguments about interfering with people's rights, and so on, but they do everything that they can to try to protect our country. I assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the House that, from the work that I have seen, the benefit of the doubt each time is given to the protection of this country above all else.

Mike Hall: The Healthcare Commission published its The State of Healthcare 2005 report on Monday. The report shows that there has been a dramatic reduction in hospital waiting times and an improvement in the treatment and care of people suffering from cancer and coronary heart disease, but does my right hon. Friend agree that we need to do still more to improve health inequalities? On the Windmill Hill estate in my constituency, the Halton primary care trust has recently withdrawn GPs' surgeries. Will he join me in pressing Halton PCT to reinstate GP services, so that better health facilities can be enjoyed across the whole of my constituency? Will he also say something to encourage people to use NHS Direct?

Tony Blair: I certainly agree that we must carry on with the improvements that are taking place. Although the Healthcare Commission report said that certain services still had a long way to go and needed to be improved, its main point is worth noting. The report states:
	This year's report identifies much that should be celebrated. People are now able to gain access to many healthcare services more quickly and easily than in the past . . . Other improvements, such as better access to drugs and operations, are helping to produce better outcomes for people with cancer and coronary heart disease.
	We are only halfway through the NHS plan that we published in 2000, so it is bound to be the case that we still have a distance to go. However, the overall picture is that the NHS is getting better all the time.

Charles Kennedy: May I also extend my party's tributes to the families of the three British service personnel so tragically killed in Iraq as they courageously carried out their duties? Specifically on Iraq, has the Prime Minister seen or heard the rather devastating report compiled by the BBC's John Simpson about the escalating violence there? Did he hear the assertion made yesterday by Crown Prince Hassan of Jordan that he considered Iraq to be heading for civil war, and does he agree with that assessment?

Tony Blair: No, I do not agree with that assessment, but, obviously, there is a very serious situation, particularly when, for example, one of the Sunni representatives on the constitutional committee was assassinated yesterday, simply for trying to play his part in bringing about a democratic Iraq. But the issue that I come back to the whole time is, if that terrorism is happening in Iraq and it is aimed at destroying the possibility of that country becoming a democracy, what should our response be. My response is to stand firm and see it through because, in the end, if Iraq becomes the country that Iraqis want it to benamely, a democracythat will send a hugely powerful signal out not just to Iraq and the region, but against that type of terrorism the world over.

Charles Kennedy: Specifically, in response to the considered response that the Prime Minister has given and as this is the last time that we can question him before 10 Octoberwho knows what might develop in Iraq during that coming periodwill he therefore give us an estimate today, before we head into recess, about how long he believes a substantial British force must continue to be deployed in Iraq?

Tony Blair: I cannot give a specific date. What I can say is that the strategy that is being pursued is, first, to build the democratic process in Iraq. That democratic process is supported by the 8 million Iraqis who came to vote, by the United Nations and by anyone who wants Iraq to become the country that it could be. That constitutional process will continue with the drafting of the constitution and then with the parliamentary elections in December. The second thing is to build up the capability of the Iraqi security forces themselves. That capability is being built the entire time. Indeed, the Iraqi forces are actually taking on many of the patrols down in the south now. Even around Baghdad, there are now joint multinational forces and Iraqi operations.
	Those are the two key things, but as President Karzai of Afghanistan said yesterday, the same perverted ideology that is trying to kill people in whatever country it can is trying to prevent Afghanistan and Iraq from becoming democracies. What is important sometimes, when people talk about their concern for Iraq or Afghanistan, is to let the legitimate voices of those people who have supported democracy in those countries be heard and to let them be the people who represent the true voice of Iraq and Afghanistannot the representatives of the ideology that is trying to kill decent folk in both countries.

Ashok Kumar: May I praise my right hon. Friend for his great courage and conviction in tackling terrorism and the way that he has championed the cause of multiculturalism and kept that spirit alive, given the difficult circumstances? But may I also make him aware that the attacks, these difficult times and the bombings that have taken place affect not only the Muslim community, but the wider Asian community and in particular, the Hindu and Sikh communities? In the spirit that he has opened up dialogue with the Muslim community, will he open up the same dialogue with the Hindu and Sikh communities, so that we can work with them in the greater interests of community relations to keep the spirit of multiculturalism alive?

Tony Blair: My hon. Friend makes a very fair point. We will obviously try to do more to ensure that we keep in touch with the Hindu and Sikh communities, and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary had a meeting with them a short time ago.

Henry Bellingham: Does the Prime Minister recall visiting the Queen Elizabeth hospital in King's Lynn during the 2001 election, when he came up to support the then sitting Labour MP? Does he recall saying to my constituents that the Norfolk health economy would be properly funded under Labour? Is he aware that the Norfolk health economy is now 22 million in the red, that the chairman and chief executive of our local hospitalthe Queen Elizabethhave both resigned and that, last week, two wards were closed? What message does he have for those hard-working consultants and staff who are battling on in very difficult circumstances?

Tony Blair: My message is that I hope that those people and the hon. Gentleman would support the extra funding that is going into the health service in Norfolk and elsewhere. I hope that he points out to his constituents and those in the neighbouring constituency that, if the Conservative party had had its way, that money would never have gone into the national health service. If we read the Healthcare Commission report and see the improvements made, they show the wisdom of investment, not cuts, as the policy.

David Anderson: May I ask the Prime Minister to take the good wishes of this House back to the good people of Sedgefield, who have had the common sense to vote to retain their council housing in-house? Will he have a word in the ear of the Deputy Prime Minister and say that that is another reason why we should support the fourth option for council housing, which is, after all, Labour party policy?

Tony Blair: No, but I think that the caseeven if I do not agree with the decisionshows the benefits of choice.

Peter Luff: The 3,000 people who crowded into Evesham market square for the protest rally on Sunday and the 20,000 who have signed the petition to save the town's hospital would be surprised to learn that, only two years ago, in Keeping the NHS Local, the Government advocated
	sustainable solutions for smaller hospitals to secure their valued role at the heart of local communities.
	Given the substantial extra funding that is going to the South Worcestershire primary care trust, why is it proposed to close wards and sharply reduce services at Evesham community hospital, in direct contradiction of Government policy?

Tony Blair: I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman at least concedes that there has been substantial extra funding. Decision making on the configuration of local services must be a matter for the PCTthat is the procedure with which I think we all agree. I understand that the proposals for Evesham community hospital are at an early stage and I expect that the PCT will take into account all representations, including the hon. Gentleman's, before taking any decisions. However, it is worth highlighting something that he implied, which is that there has been a substantial increase in funding[Hon. Members: Where is it going?] I shall say where. The funding is going into the 87 million private finance initiative Worcestershire royal hospital, which is now completed and operational, and into the 1,800 more nurses, 240 more consultants and 140 more doctors. In other words, it is going into improving health care services.

Khalid Mahmood: I thank my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary for taking time yesterday and today to meet representatives of the Muslim community. I also thank my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for the announcement made earlier on dealing with people who incite racial and religious hatred in this country. Will he go further and deal with the organisations that must be proscribed to stop them inciting religious hatred?

Tony Blair: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who has shown immense courage in difficult circumstances. He is right to draw attention to organisations that try to incite hatred or glorify terrorism. That is what the new legislation is, in part, designed to tackle.

Michael Jack: The Prime Minister may be aware that the university of Central Lancashire runs one of the most successful programmes for Chinese students: some 600 have already graduated in engineering. However, the 300 students who are to start the academic year in September are facing new and burdensome requirements in applying for their visas. Although it is important to sort out legitimate students from illegitimate ones, will the right hon. Gentleman use his good offices to ensure that students who qualify to come here can do so and that we do not damage that valuable contribution to Sino-British relations?

Tony Blair: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the importance of international students, who add 5 billion to the UK economy, and of not making procedures over-burdensome, but he knows why we have introduced tougher requirements. We needed to make sure that people who come to this country as students are coming to take bona fide courses at bona fide places and that they will not switch from a student visa and claim asylum as some have done over the years, or do other things. That is why we have had to tighten our procedures. We are trying to strike the right balance and I shall certainly consider the points made by the right hon. Gentleman, but it is important that we send a strong signal. Yes, the overwhelming majority of students come here for bona fide reasonsto studybut the system has been open to certain abuses and it is important that we close the opportunities for abuse.

Neil Gerrard: The commitment that was made at the G8 to aim for universal access to drugs treatment for HIV by 2010 was enormously important. I am sure that the Prime Minister accepts that we need substantial and sustained increases in aid from developed countries beyond anything that has been agreed so far if we are to have any chance of achieving that aim. With that in mind, what are his objectives for the conference that will be held here in September on the replenishment of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria? Does he accept that, if that fund is not replenished, that will send a signal that the G8 is not serious about the commitments that it made?

Tony Blair: My hon. Friend will understand that part of the purpose of the conference in September is to replenish the funding. It is important that we do that, but I emphasise that it is not only the global fund that will help in tackling AIDS. It is also bilateral relationships, not least those that this country has with African countries that are suffering from AIDS, a huge pandemic that is causing misery across the whole continent and reducing life expectancy. If we secure the commitments that we envisaged at the G8, that will get us as close as possible to universal access to HIV/AIDS treatment by 2010, which would be a huge achievement.

John Hayes: The list of conditions exempted from prescription charges was drawn up in the 1960s, as the Prime Minister knows. At that time, cystic fibrosis sufferers mainly died in childhood, so they did not pay prescription charges. Many now live to adulthood. The Prime Minister will recall pledging to deal with this matter before the 1997 election, again in 1999 and again in 2001. Indeed, at the Dispatch Box earlier this year, he once again promised to review the situation. Is he going to honour his pledge, or is he going to let these vulnerable people suffer and pay?

Tony Blair: I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. It is true that we keep that under constant review, but it is important to point out[Interruption.] If we change the list for one condition it has implications for other conditions as well. It is true that we keep it under review, but it also true that we give a substantial amount of help to sufferers of cystic fibrosis and other such conditions. While I agree that the hon. Gentleman has a point in relation to prescriptions it would be wrong to imply that we do nothing to help those sufferers, because we do.

Mike Gapes: Does the Prime Minister agree that there can be no excuse, no rationalisation and no justification for criminals who bomb, maim and murder on buses, in tubes, in offices, in restaurants, in shops and in schools, whether in Beslan, Madrid, London, New York, Tunis or in Tel Aviv, and that the best defence therefore is to stand firm on our resolute democratic values and international co-operation?

Tony Blair: I totally agreethere is no justification for it here or elsewhere.

Peter Robinson: Is the Prime Minister aware of the incidents of violence in Northern Ireland in recent weeks? Is he aware of the atrocious attacks by republicans on the police and attacks by republicans on loyalist areas of north Belfast and Cluan place in my east Belfast constituency? Is he aware of what appears to be a loyalist feud in which there are attacks by loyalists on other loyalists? Will he take it from me that my colleagues and I condemn that completely and without any mental reservation? Is he disappointed that the leadership of Sinn Fein does not condemn the attacks by republicans on loyalists and the police?

Tony Blair: I completely condemn those attacks, whether they come from republicans or whether they are attacks that loyalists are committing on one another. There is no justification for any of it, and people must realise that if we want to make progress in Northern Ireland the violence, from whatever quarter, has to stop.

Anne Begg: Now that the summer recess is almost upon us, will my right hon. Friend have time to do what millions of people did this weekend and read the new Harry Potter novel by Scotland's most successful writer? What would he say to people who have been critical of those books, especially as they have done more to improve literacy and children's enjoyment of reading than even this Government's excellent education policies and everything that I did in 19 years as an English teacher?

Tony Blair: The Harry Potter brief in my file is somewhat thin, which only shows that my officials' sense of importance is not what it should be. I was told by someone, however, that in the first chapter of the new book the Minister of Magic comes out of a picture to confront the Prime Minister. I am still searching for the Minister.

Peter Bottomley: The Prime Minister knows that we can raise individual cases, as well as major international issues. Before 1997, many members of his Administration signed the petition to the Florida supreme court concerning Krishna Maharaj, who has spent nearly 18 years in jail. Will the Prime Minister please consider taking advice and communicating with both President Bush and Governor Bush to see whether it is possible to get the state to stop opposing the application for a new trial, which ought to have been granted in the United States?

Tony Blair: I confess that I am not familiar with the particular case, but the Foreign Secretary tells me that he is taking the matter up.

London Terror Attack Update

Charles Clarke: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to bring the House up to date with developments since my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made his statement to the House on Monday 11 July.
	A total of 56 people are now known to have died as a result of the explosions. The identities of all of these have now been formally confirmed through the relevant procedures. Support and advice continue to be given to the families affected as requested, in what remain very difficult and traumatic circumstances. It is possible that this total may rise as the police investigation of the very difficult scenes continues. Twenty-seven people remain in hospital undergoing treatment at present.
	Until this week all four explosion sites have remained crime scenes, and at this point three still are. As the police have made clear, it is vital to their work that no clues or evidence are overlooked or destroyed. However, Transport for London is optimistic that Aldgate station, which has been handed back to London Underground by the police, may be returned to service by next Monday, 25 July. The train has now been removed from the Edgware Road site, although police remain at the scene. Subject to completion of the forensic work and a fuller inspection of the tracks at Edgware Road, it is hoped that a full Circle line service may be restored in a couple of weeks. It is not possible at present to say how long restoration of the Russell Square site may take. Roads around Upper Woburn place remain closed at present, pending conclusion of the police forensic investigation of the site.
	There has been a great deal of speculation about the ongoing investigation. The police will continue to give regular updates, but I do not intend to make detailed comments, since to do so could be damaging and might impede any resulting prosecutions.
	The House will, however, be aware that there has been rapid progress on identifying productive lines of inquiry. A very large volume of information, including witness statements, CCTV footage, and evidence from the scenes and recovered from searched addresses, is already being analysed. The police and security services are to be congratulated on their work in this complex and fast-moving investigation. We are all determined to take whatever steps are needed to identify, track down and bring to justice all those involved in instigating, planning, and supporting these terrible crimes.
	I turn to the forthcoming counter-terrorism legislation. As the House will know, I wrote to the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) and the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) on Friday setting out our initial proposals for inclusion in the Bill. Copies of my letter were placed in the Libraries of both Houses. On Monday I met the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen to discuss the matter, and I should like to place on record my appreciation of the helpful and constructive tone that they both adopted.
	My letter set out the main items which the Government believe should be included in the counter-terrorism Bill. I should stress that these proposals were drawn up before 7 July. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister indicated in his statement last week, we are discussing with the police and intelligence agencies whether there might be further powers that they need in the light of those events and the subsequent investigation.
	The heart of the Bill is the creation of three new offences. The first of these criminalises acts preparatory to terrorism in order to ensure that early intervention does not mean that those responsible, who may be planning very serious terrorist crimes, should escape prosecution. The new offence will capture those planning serious acts of terrorism.
	The second proposed new offence focuses on indirect incitement to terrorism. Direct incitement to commit acts of violence is already a criminal offence. The proposal targets those who, although not directly inciting, glorify and condone terrorist acts, knowing full well that the effect on their listeners will be to encourage them to turn to terrorism. So indirect incitement, when it is done with the intention of inciting others to commit acts of terrorismthat is an important qualificationwill become a criminal offence.
	Thirdly, the Bill will deal with the giving and receiving of terrorist training. Our existing law already criminalises much activity that could fall within that description, but we want to close the gaps to make sure that anyone who gives or receives training in terrorist techniques is covered. Legislating for those last two offences will enable the UK to ratify the Council of Europe convention on the prevention of terrorism, which I very much welcome. The Bill will also make a number of other amendments to existing legislation, which are set out in the letter that I have placed in the Library of the House.
	I am very pleased to say that when we met on Monday, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden and the hon. Member for Winchester indicated that they were, in principle, prepared to support all these measures. Of course they will want to see, and contribute to, the detail as it emerges, and I have undertaken to keep them informed of developments during the summer. I am grateful to them for their support and hope that we can continue to proceed by means of consensus. In that spirit, both of them indicated to me on Monday that they were in favour of the Government decoupling this legislation from the further parliamentary consideration of control orders, to which I gave a commitment during the passage of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, and bringing it forward for introduction in October. They further indicated to me that they were in favour of proceeding straight to introduction, without pre-legislative scrutiny, provided that they could have early sight of the draft legislation and that the normal parliamentary procedures and timetable were followed in both Houses.
	On that basis, we are proposing to bring forward the legislation as soon as practicable when the House returns. We propose to return to the issue of control orders in the spring after we have the report from the independent reviewer, Lord Carlile. He is not only the reviewer of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, because he performs a similar function in respect of the Terrorism Act 2000. He published his most recent report on the operation of that Act on 26 May and I am grateful to him for a typically thorough and thoughtful report. Of course his report was published before the terrible events of 7 July, but he has since confirmed that his overall conclusions remain. I have today published the Government's response to his report and placed copies in the Library. We have given effect to several of  his recommendations and are giving active consideration to others.
	In the days and weeks since 7 July, many have raised concerns about extremists who seek to come to this country to foment terrorism, or to provoke others to commit terrorist acts. I have reviewed the Government's powers to exclude such people. The Home Secretary has powers to exclude individuals on the grounds that their presence in the UK is not conducive to the public interest. There is no statutory right of appeal against the exclusion decision, but of course it can be challenged through judicial review. In addition, immigration and entry clearance officers have similar powers. Any exclusion by them would generate a right of appeal. This power is currently informed by the operation of a warnings index of named individuals. I have concluded that these powers need to be applied more widely and systematically both to people before they come to the UK and when they are here.
	In recent decades, for all Home Secretaries, the criteria for exercising these powers have generally been grounds of national security, public order or risk to the UK's good relations with a third country. In going beyond these grounds, we rightly need to tread very carefully indeed in areas that relate to free speech. However, in the circumstances that we now face, I have decided that it is right to broaden the use of these powers to deal with those who foment terrorism, or seek to provoke others to commit terrorist acts. To that end, I intend to draw up a list of unacceptable behaviours that fall within those powersfor example, preaching, running websites or writing articles that are intended to foment or provoke terrorism. The list will be indicative rather than exhaustive and we will consult on it, because it is important that we work with communities.
	Where there are grounds for considering that a person has been engaged in such activities, or will do so in the UK, exclusion will be considered. I have asked my officials together with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the intelligence agencies to establish a full database of individuals around the world who have demonstrated the relevant behaviours. That database will be available to entry clearance and immigration officers and will be added to the current warnings index. I should make it clear that entry on that index does not necessarily mean exclusion, but in all cases it will trigger the possibility of a decision to exclude by Ministers.
	In addition to using that list to ensure that those non-conducive powers are applied more widely and systematically at the point of entry, the specified unacceptable behaviours will not be permitted for individuals who have leave to enter or remain in this country. That power arises in various categories: for those here temporarily, for example, as visitors, students or workers, or their dependants and for those with indefinite leave to remain, any breach will lead to termination of their leave or deportation; for asylum seekers, we will, as a general rule, look to detain them and fast-track their claims; and for refugees, we will consider whether the behaviours described fall within one of the categories for exclusion from protection under the 1951 refugee convention.
	We have already made it clear in the changes announced on refugee status earlier this week that any breach by a refugee of the categories for exclusion will trigger an immediate review of their status. We are already consulting on changes to the conditions for leave to enter and remain for ministers of religion, and we will consider with the faith communities whether further measures are needed.
	I am also urgently seeking agreement with EU and other countries on the mutual exchange of information on exclusion decisions. The power of exclusion is necessarily targeted at those outside the UK. When people who are already in the UK engage in the kind of behaviour that I have identified and described, it may well be appropriate to deport them under statutory powers. I will ensure that a consistent stance is taken in relation to both deportation and exclusions. In the past, there have been some successful challenges to proposed deportations under article 3 of the European convention on human rights. For that reason, we have actively been seeking memorandums of understanding with a number of Governments to address those legal concerns.
	I am pleased to announce today that the Governments of the United Kingdom and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan have reached agreement in principle on the provisions of such a memorandum of understanding, regulating the arrangements by which assurances regarding the treatment of particular individuals can be sought prior to their deportation. The formal signing of the memorandum of understanding will be arranged shortly, and a copy of the text will be placed in the Library once the signing ceremony has taken place.
	I do not in general intend to comment on the position of particular individuals. In the light of recent public comments, however, the House may be interested to know that I understand that Sheikh Yusuf Al Qaradawi is not now planning to visit the UK in the near future. If he were to seek to do so, I would of course have to consider whether his presence would be conducive to the public good. I will follow the approach that I have set out today in the case of Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammed and other individuals whose names are in the public domain.
	I want to conclude by applauding the efforts that the leaders of the Muslim communities are now making to improve their capacity to fight extremism and protect young people. Positive proposals are emerging from a series of meetings between my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, myself and others on strengthening our capacity to fight the destructive and nihilist philosophy of those who promoted the London bombings.
	As I hope that I have demonstrated, there is unity of purpose. The Government want to work with other parties to ensure that we have the most effective anti-terrorism legislation on our statute book. Similarly, we want to work with the Muslim community to isolate and weaken dangerous extremists. I am grateful to all engaged in that important work, which I hope commands Parliament's support.

David Davis: I thank the Home Secretary for bringing the House up to date and for his courtesy in keeping Opposition parties informed privately about developments during the past two weeks, when Britain has shown that it can and will come together to fight the new breed of terrorism that stalks our land.
	The new breed of terrorism is extraordinarily calculatingal-Qaeda and its foot soldiers know precisely what they are trying to achieve by their wicked and despicable actions. The overarching aim of the 9/11 atrocity was publicly to destroy symbols of American economic and military power, in the twin towers and the Pentagon. The Madrid attack was designed to interfere in the domestic politics and foreign policies of Spain. The King's Cross atrocity, with its calculated trail of evidence leading deliberately back to the cities of northern England, was designed to demoralise and divide our communities and to set Muslim and non-Muslim against one another.
	It is to this country's enormous credit that, in large part, that has not been allowed to happen. British people of all religions and none have stood together in the face of this appalling evil. As a result, almost two weeks on from that terrible Thursday morning in London, the terrorists and all who harbour and support them know that they simply have not won.
	Our united response to terrorism stems from three separate sources; the Home Secretary referred to some of them. First, there are the police and the security services. I pay tribute to them at this time. They have come under considerable scrutiny in the days since 7 July, but we must never forget that when a terrorist gets through it is inevitably public, but when a terrorist is thwarted, it often remains secret. The services have acted with tremendous speed to identify those responsible, and continue to display the utmost professionalism in tracking down those behind them. In doing so, some of them have had to work in hideously unpleasant conditions, and I know that the whole House will want to join the Home Secretary in putting our gratitude on the record.
	The second source is the Government and Parliament. I pay tribute to the calm and measured way in which the Government have conducted themselves in the last two weeks. They have been quick to make effective proposals to update our anti-terrorism laws, and I commend the Home Secretary for accepting our proposals to accelerate the process, without eroding proper parliamentary scrutiny.
	The first new offence that the Home Secretary proposes, covering acts preparatory to terrorism, we have called for for some time. For the benefit of the House, will the Home Secretary describe the difference between that offence and simple conspiracy, or attempting to commit terrorist acts? I know that there are differences, and I would like him to outline them a little more, for the benefit of the House.
	I also welcome the new law on the indirect incitement of terrorism. It is much better focused than the alternative proposals that have been suggested in the past. As so much of the effectiveness of such a law depends on the drafting, will the Home Secretary ensure that early drafts are available as soon as possible in September, so that interested partiesnot just the Opposition parties, but bodies such as the Law Societycan pass judgment and therefore help to improve the law?
	I also reiterate the point made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition during Prime Minister's questionsthat we continue to believe that allowing the use of phone tapping evidence in court will help even further.
	As for practical actions, will the Home Secretary re-examine the security of Britain's ports? Reports have suggested that an individual connected with the attack may have entered the country through one of our ports and been seen, or missed, by the security services. I do not expect the right hon. Gentleman to comment directly on that, but will he tell the House what action he is taking to ensure that all British airports and ports have the proper establishment levels, the special branch officers and the other staff to ensure that that sort of thing does not happen?
	Finally, the attacks demand an active response from the community itself, particularly from prominent members of the Muslim community in Britain. They have already shown leadership over the past two weeks, and Muslims in communities across Britain have responded quickly and openly to requests for help from the security services and the police. The Home Secretary and I met senior members of all the faiths and community groups this morning, and they fully understand that the best way to fight home-grown terrorism is to root it out at its source. They have a clear responsibility to act, but there are several things that the Government can do to help.
	There are good imams and bad imams, and it is no help to the good imams if we do not deal with the bad ones. Accordingly, I greatly welcome the Home Secretary's announcement today about strengthening his powers of exclusion, and his implicit reference to dealing with Sheikh Al Qaradawi and Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammed. I hope that the Government will also consider going further, by looking to train, or to encourage the training of, more imams here in Britain, so that their teachings will be consistent with the society in which they preach.
	I also hope that the Government will think about what they can do to deal with the issue of disaffected young people who travel to madrassahs, particularly in Pakistan, where some madrassahs appear to indoctrinate rather than educate. Action on that issue would be greatly welcomed.
	Many words have been expended over the past two weeks as people from all areas of British society and beyond have united to condemn the attacks. As time goes on, those words will increasingly turn unto demands for action. With the proposals that the Government have set out this week, they have shown themselves ready to meet that demand, and I am happy to say that we continue to stand ready with them.
	Ultimately, tackling terrorism in Britain will be a combined effort, with politicians, the police, the security services and the community working together. That is what we have seen in the past two weeks, and that is why we have been able to make such swift progress in identifying those who committed the atrocity, tracking those who supported and abetted them, and learning lessons to improve our defences in future.
	If the House will allow me to indulge in a personal comment, I may say that I have known and been a friend of the Home Secretary for 30 years. The last two weeks have probably produced the worst events and the most important decisions that he has had to take. If I may say so, I commend how he, personally, has responded to and risen to the occasion.
	If in the days ahead we are able to carry forward that model, our society and our country really will have come out of this ordeal stronger. That, I think, would be the finest tribute to all those who, sadly, were killed or injured in London nearly two weeks ago.

Charles Clarke: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his personal remarks, which I very much appreciate, and for the political support that he and his party have given to the whole of our approach. It is very important that we should work in the way that he has described, and I certainly can confirm my absolute determination to continue working in that way over the coming period.
	The right hon. Gentleman raised several specific points. The offence relating to acts preparatory to an act of terrorism is intended to facilitate the prosecution of individuals known to have instigated an act of terrorism or to have been planning, preparing or conspiring to commit an act of terrorism. That is because there is a requirement to protect the public, which means that the police and security agencies may have to intervene early when they become aware of a terrorist cell, with the consequence that it may not be possible to know what precise atrocity was being planned. Indeed, the terrorists themselves might not have concluded on what form of action they would follow. That is the issue that we are trying to address with that offence.
	I can commit the Government to making early drafts available in September and to doing so more widely than simply to the Opposition parties. That will allow us to look at where we are and see where we are going.
	On interceptors evidence, the right hon. Gentleman will know that I still do not agree with the point that he is putting. However, as the Prime Minister made clear at Question Time, there is no issue of principle here; there is a practical issue of how to deal with it in a proper way. We shall continue discussing that point.
	On ports, we shall continue to keep the situation very much under review. We shall look consistently at the security arrangements on ports, but I have to say that the co-operation in the way that the various agencies are working together is extremely good at this point.
	Finally, the points that the right hon. Gentleman made about the community are absolutely true. I want to address two dimensions. From the very beginning, from Thursday 7 July, we have brought together faith leaders of different faiths who are already working strongly together and who need to continue to do so. They have been exemplary in the way in which they have operated, and we need to continue to develop that.
	The second strand, as the right hon. Gentleman implied, is to work with the Muslim community in particular to strengthen those forces within that community who want to develop their relationship with the wider society in a strong and constructive way. There are interesting issues about the training of imams that need to be addressed. I note that the Church of England and the Catholic Church have, through their teacher training colleges, which are now university colleges, found a range of ways of looking at some of the issues. It may well be worth exploring whether work could be taken forward in that way for the Muslim community and other faith communities. I hope that that will arise out of the conversations that we will hold.

Mark Oaten: I thank the Home Secretary for notice of his statement and for the approach that he has taken over the past couple of weeks. In particular, I thank him for the constructive meeting held on Monday. As he knows, the Liberal Democrats have offered our support for the three measures that he has outlined. We believe that they could contribute towards security in this country.
	The measures on indirect incitement to terrorism will be difficult to define, and I welcome the Home Secretary's constructive approach in working with all parties on the wording. Does he agree that the key to the law will be to produce a wording that can stand up in court but which is not so wide in scope that it could ever be misused in future?
	The Home Secretary knows that we still have differences on control orders. I welcome the idea of raising those differences and working with the Government when they are debated in the spring. When will he next report on the number of control orders issued, and does he agree that that report cannot wait until Parliament returns in mid-October?
	The Home Secretary has stressed in the past that he believes that the intelligence services have the resources that they require. However, it is local police who are in the front line and who often provide essential back-up for the intelligence services. Is he satisfied that the Met and local police forces that have major cities in their area have the resources to be able to provide that essential back-up?
	On deporting, which the Home Secretary mentioned in his statement, he said that he would seek memorandums of understanding with other countries on human rights. What system will be put in place to check that countries stick to the commitments in the memorandums, and would he favour some form of independent assessment to see that that is being done?
	Finally, it is our firm view that good legislation needs good debate and scrutiny by parliamentarians. The Liberal Democrats will play our part in that process, but we do so from the firm belief that all parties should work together on these measures to send the terrorists the strongest possible signal that parties committed to democracy in this country are determined to join together to defeat them.

Charles Clarke: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments, which I appreciate and accept entirely. I appreciate, too, the way in which he and his colleagues have worked on these matters in the past days. We shall continue to work in that spirit.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about the wording standing up in court, and that is precisely the point. He is also right to say that the drafting issues on the inciting offence are by no means straightforward, which is why we shall discuss them in the way that he suggested. He is quite right that the offence will have a value only if it can stand up to the scrutiny of courts at a later stage, and that will be a central principle in what we do.
	On control orders, we are committed to reporting every three months on the operation of the regime. We reported after the first three months a few weeks ago and will next report at the next three-month point, which is in, I think, the second week of September. We will, I hope, report via the parliamentary process at that time, although it is yet to be resolved exactly how. Certainly, under all circumstances, we will report as we have committed to.
	On resources for policing, I do believe that extra resources for policing have made a difference, particularly the extra resources for the intelligence services, which, I have been told, have made a significant difference already to their work over the recent period. I accept the point that we will need to review how resourcing has been over the period. I have had initial discussions with the Commissioner on one or two aspects of that, and we will keep it under close review.
	On the memorandums of understanding, the hon. Gentleman is quite right to say that they must be capable of including a monitoring process that will be seen to be acceptable. The question of the independence or otherwise of the assessment will be dealt with on a country by country basis. We have been active in pursuing the agreements, and I am delighted by the announcement I have been able to make today about Jordan. The memorandums will themselves have to stand up in court when courts come to consider how article 3 operates.
	Finally, I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's commitment to a healthy debate on those matters. I, too, will try to give as good as I get.

Ann Keen: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the way in which the process has been conducted, particularly in my borough, Hounslow, which is a well established multicultural community. My right hon. Friend mentioned recruitment to the police in his statement, particularly from the Muslim community. The borough commander in Hounslow, Dr. Diziea, is from that community, and I would welcome any opportunity to discuss with my right hon. Friend his role in helping in any way.

Charles Clarke: I thank my hon. Friend for her comments. I know the borough commander and his work, and I share her assessment of him. I spoke earlier today with the Commissioner about precisely these matters. He sees two major areas that he will seek to develop in conversations he will have next week. The first is the recruitment of Muslim police officers, which my hon. Friend referred to, including at senior level. The second is how to develop work on counter-terrorism in a strong way that ensures nationally, and not just in London, that there is a strong relationship with the Muslim community that can help to detect any proposed terrorist acts.

David Lidington: Will the Home Secretary thank the chief constable of Thames Valley for the professionalism with which his officers and the Met carried out their operation in Aylesbury last week? Will he welcome the denunciation of terror and the strong support for the police expressed by the imam and the leaders of the mosque in Aylesbury? Does he agree that alongside the counter-terrorist measures that he is rightly bringing forward, we as a country need to address why a minority of young men from our Muslim communities feel so disaffected, not only from mainstream white society but from the older generations of their own communities, that they have, in a minority of cases, wanted to listen to those who were urging extremism and hatred?

Charles Clarke: I am happy to reinforce the hon. Gentleman's praise for the chief constable of Thames Valley police. The police in general have done an outstanding job, particularly in areas such as Aylesbury, Leeds and London, where there have been particular challenges.
	I was delighted to read of the denunciation by leaders of the Muslim community in Aylesbury of these terrible atrocities. It is particularly important, if I may say so, that the communities directly involved make explicit, strong and courageous statements in the way that the hon. Gentleman describes. It is critical to twin that with the determination to root out the causes of this behaviour.
	On disaffected young people, that is an issue of the ages that we have to address. This morning we had a good discussionthe right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) was presentwith several people from different communities about what we can do. I can confirm that following those discussions the process will continue, with some specific propositions over the summer. I do not want to imply that it is an easy issue, because it is notit is quite fundamental.

John Battle: I thank my right hon. Friend for his calm and measured leadership in the past two weeks. Will he join me in offering a word of tribute to people in the Burley Lodge area in Leeds? I rushed home on Tuesday because they were evacuated from their homes while the whole area was searched for a bomb factory. When I got to the community centre, I found that only 34 people from the 470 homes that had been evacuated were there because the rest had been taken into the homes of families, friends and neighbours, cutting across racial, religious and cultural divides. That quietly demonstrates the forbearance and tolerance that could be a hope for the future in our communities.
	I thank my right hon. Friend for the way in which the police and the security services worked with the local community at the tape barrier during the crisis; it was a model of police and community relations. Does he agree, however, that while we work on the taskforce initiative and on building a consensus for necessary new legislation, it will be crucial in the next few weeks that all sections of the community, including peoples of different faiths and none, work together to ensure that we are vigilantwatching out for each otherwithout turning into vigilantes? Life could be difficult in our neighbourhoods unless we develop a deep respect and calm in our neighbourhoods while we work to address the complex challenges that this has thrown up.

Charles Clarke: I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's remarks, particularly his references to vigilance and respect. Those are key words for us all in the way that we operate, and he is right to highlight them.
	I join my right hon. Friend in paying tribute to the police and community leaders in Leeds. In the immediate aftermath of the events, I was particularly glad to have his advice on how to deal with them. I pay tribute to the role that he played in seeking to lead his community in the direction that he describes, which has been very important.

William Cash: Will the Home Secretary take account of the need to review the Human Rights Act 1998 in the context of these terror attacks? I am sure that he appreciates that severe difficulties arise if that Act gives judges the right to make decisions that should properly be taken by him and through legislation in this House. Does he agree that were he to provide for a notwithstanding clauseas in notwithstanding the Human Rights Act 1998before legislating, he would be able to overcome many of the difficulties on control orders, as I indicated in a Bill that I introduced a few months ago?

Charles Clarke: The hon. Gentleman is a long-standing campaigner on the European convention on human rights; I am not sure whether that is simply because it comes from Europe or because he does not like human rights. Nevertheless, these are important issues. The right way to proceed is not by withdrawing from the convention, but by respecting human rights and trying to ensure that we can carry that through in an effective way.

John Denham: Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that some of those who have sought to understand and explain what happens have sometimes been accused of justifying what happens, and that in the current circumstances it is important that there is an open debate that recognises the causes of the London bombing?
	On the legislation, the House is in recess for three months, but Select Committees are not necessarily so. Will my right hon. Friend consider publishing the draft Bill in sufficient time for the Home Affairs Committee to consider it before the House comes back?

Charles Clarke: On my right hon. Friend's last point, I will certainly consider doing that. I appreciate the implicit offer in his readiness to see whether the Select Committee might meet although the House is not sitting. I will consider in conversation with him whether that might be a device to help further positive consideration.
	On the more general point, I agree that care has to be taken. Some voices are immoderate in the way in which they address these questions, although immoderacy can perhaps be understood in the circumstances with which we are dealing. In general, although there are exceptions, the response of even the most extreme elements of the media has been positive rather than negative, and all parts of society have been trying to respond in a positive way.

Alex Salmond: As much as the Home Secretary has said, I thoroughly support. However, why do we have to depend on The New York Times to find out that the joint terrorist analysis centre, working from MI5 headquarters, concluded in June:
	Events in Iraq are continuing to act as motivation and a focus of a range of terrorist related activity in the U.K.?
	Why have the Government been so adamant that Iraq is not a factornot a reason or an excuse, still less a justification, for atrocity, but a factorin terrorist capability within the United Kingdom? We have had academic opinion in the Chatham House report and public opinion in yesterday's poll in The Guardian, and now we find that that was the view of the joint terrorist analysis centre in June. Has the Home Secretary seen that report and how does he reconcile it with the views expressed by the Government over the past two weeks?

Charles Clarke: On the JTAC report, I will commit myself simply to the remarks made by the Prime Minister during Prime Minister's questions.
	On the more general point, there is a serious intellectual flabbiness on the part of those who argue that Iraq was the cause of this issue. If one looks back over the past 10 years at the appalling atrocities that have taken place across the world, including 9/11 and other events, one realises that many of them took place in different circumstances before the Iraq war was engaged upon.
	It is very important to say that large numbers of  perfectly reasonable people think that the Government's position on Iraq was wrong, but that does not mean that they are on the edge of being terrorists. It is perfectly okay to disagree with the Government. The Government had to come to a decision; I think that it was the right one. People can have their different opinionsthat is perfectly legitimate and part of the debate that can take place. However, it is completely mistaken to implyI am not suggesting that the hon. Gentleman implied it in quite this sensethat if one says that the Government's position on Iraq was wrong, that takes one to the edge of moving towards a terrorist attack.

Louise Ellman: I very much welcome the Home Secretary's statement and the proposals in it. Does he accept that the root cause of the terrorist problem facing us is a global ideology that fuels hatred and that cannot be dealt with other than by facing it head on and accepting it for the evil that it is? Does he also agree that it is unacceptable for people to excuse or support suicide bombings outside this country, yet claim to be against the same sort of action within our shores?

Charles Clarke: I strongly agree with both my hon. Friend's points. I believe that her explanation is much nearer the problem with which we have to wrestle in trying to understand why the appalling events took place. We have to contend with a quasi-ideological set of issues. Not only all of us here, as Members of Parliament, in Government and in Opposition, but the communitiesespecially the Muslim community in the case that we are consideringmust contend with it. We have to be engaged in the argument. It is our job, especially mine, to do whatever we can with the Muslim community to help it to address the matter. However, my hon. Friend has put her finger on precisely the sort of issues that we must address when thinking our way through the problem.

Nicholas Winterton: May I join my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) in congratulating the Home Secretary on the way in which he has handled matters since the atrocities were committed? Will the Home Secretary join me in congratulating the people of London and elsewhere on their refusal to be intimidated by the brutal acts and murders? Will he also assure hon. Members that any legislation relating to the terrorist acts that he intends to introduce will not be burdenedif I may use that wordby an unnecessarily harsh programme motion? I believe that adequate opportunity for all hon. Members to contribute positively is vital. Does he accept that if he excluded fanatical clerics, such as Abu Hamza, it would suggest to the people of this country that the Government and Parliament are serious about eradicating fanaticism?

Charles Clarke: I hope that my statement will help to address the last point. On the second point, it is not for me to prejudge the usual channelsI have always sought to avoid that in my political life. However, I reaffirm the commitment that I gave in the statement, which was agreed with the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) and the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten), that there will be time for proper parliamentary scrutiny of the issues in both Houses and that that should form the context of the discussion between the usual channels.
	Of course, I agree with the hon. Gentleman's comments about London, but I want to add one point. The response was due to the quality of our emergency services and the police, and the confidence that theyno one elsegave the people of London that the situation was being handled and was under control. It was also due to the absolute determination of all faiths to maintain the strength and reassurance that was part of the approach. That has re-established the importance of all faiths in our national life. I believe that that was one of the things that allowed the people of London to respond as strongly as they did.

Margaret Moran: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Bedfordshire police and the emergency services on dealing with the difficult situation of the bomb scare in Luton and on the positive community relations that they have maintained? Will he clarify whether his proposals on   indirect incitement would deal with the activities ofal-Muhajiroun-related groups, which distributed inflammatory literature on the day after the terrorist attack in London? How can we deal with that issue without creating more so-called martyrs?

Charles Clarke: I absolutely associate myself with my hon. Friend's congratulations to Bedfordshire police and the communities in Luton. There were difficult problems there and they were handled extremely well. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's efforts to try to move matters forward.
	I shall not say what the relationship will be between the legislation and the group that she mentioned. However, I stress that the measure will cover the issue that she raised. I do not draw any specific conclusion for the particular group to which my hon. Friend referred, but the issue will be addressed. We have to do that by getting maximum support throughout all communities for dealing with incitement. We cannot simply let it all go on without taking a stance against it. We must address it and we call on all communities to work with us. I commit myself and the Home Office to working as closely as we can with communities in Luton and elsewhere to tackle those matters.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: Any measure that undermines terrorism is welcome. However, I remind the Home Secretary that in 1998, after the Omagh atrocity, the House was recalled to introduce special legislation to combat terrorism, yet no one has ever been prosecuted under that measure. In proposing to criminalise acts preparatory to terrorismI welcome thatis not intelligence gathering as important as evidential information in securing prosecutions? Is not the use of phone tap evidence to secure convictions for acts preparatory to terrorism crucial? Drawing on our experience in Northern Ireland, is it not time that the Home Secretary accepted the need to use phone tap evidence to secure prosecutions against terrorists, who are adept at avoiding leaving a trail of evidence?

Charles Clarke: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. It is one of the issues that we considered in the review that the Prime Minister commissioned on the use of intercept as evidence and on which I reported to the House earlier this year. As I have said, we have to discuss the matter furtherI am sure that we will do that in Committeeto ascertain how we deal with it. However, the hon. Gentleman is fundamentally correct in saying that intelligence is our key weapon. That includes communications evidence. We must analyse how we ensure that we maintain the ability to collect intelligence and do not jeopardise our capacity to do that while getting the evidential basis for successful prosecution.

Gordon Prentice: Is it not a priority that we train imams here for the British Muslim population of 1.6 million? Until we reach that stage, will we make it a condition of settlement for imams to be able to speak and understand English? Will imams be quizzed on their views when they apply for settlement?

Charles Clarke: Language is a requirement in the new proposals, which we sent out for consultation early this week, just as my hon. Friend suggests. Quizzing on ideological or philosophical views is not yet part of our proposals, but I shall listen to my hon. Friend's comments in the consultation that is currently taking place. On training imams, several senior community leaders made that precise proposal in the meeting that I held with them this morning. I committed myself to considering it carefully for the reasons that my hon. Friend implies. One of the under-appreciated points is that Muslim communities differ according to which part of the world they are in. That is why my hon. Friend's point has force and we are obliged to ascertain how it can be taken forward constructively.

Gerald Howarth: While I welcome the creation of the new offence of indirect incitement to terrorism, I point out to the Home Secretary that some of us, including the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), have been warning about the activities of fanatics for the past 10 years, yet the Government have taken no action. I sent the Home Secretary's predecessor, the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), a letter in 1998 about Omar Bakri Mohammad. In it, I stated that unless the British Government made it clear that we would not tolerate incitement here, we would find that other fanatics would be encouraged to follow Bakri's line and that our institutions would be subject to attack. It is important to tell the House whether the previous pronouncements of people such as Omar Bakri Mohammad will be called as evidence and taken into account. He openly condoned the attacks on our ally, the United States. If only future incitement is taken into account and people's past pronouncements are ignored, we will do the people of this country a disservice.

Charles Clarke: I will not comment on individual cases, as I said in my statement, but I confirm that all aspects of conduct will be taken into consideration when deciding what action should be taken. The Home Secretary's powers in relation to acts that are not conducive to the public good are important in principle. Getting the balance right is important. I hide from no one the fact that the events of the past few weeks have changed my view to some extent about the direction that we should take. It is a difficult balance and judgments must be made, but I have made the statement today because I believe that we need to consider the situation in a slightly different way.

Chris McCafferty: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement and the police on their remarkable forensic work since the London bombings? Will my right hon. Friend comment on recent reports that, following the Madrid bombings, the police were able rapidly to identify the owners of the mobile phones that were used as detonators because, in Spain, an ID card is a prerequisite to purchasing a mobile phone? Does he agree that although ID cards are not a panacea, they may be a useful tool in the fight against terrorism?

Charles Clarke: My hon. Friend puts it entirely correctly. No particular proposalfor ID cards or anything elseis a panacea, but they can provide useful tools, and her account of the events following the Madrid bombings is correct. I am not making the argument that anyone should change their view about particular proposals for legislationfor example, ID cardsas a result of the events of 7 July. However, I do ask people to take all the issues into account in the round in the way that my hon. Friend has suggested. That is certainly the way in which we will approach this.

Sarah Teather: My constituent, Shyanuja Parathasangary, perished in the bombings on 7 July. She was around my age and was travelling on the No. 30 bus, on her way to work, with many other Londoners. My thoughtsand, I am sure, those of the whole Houseare with her family at this time as they struggle to come to terms with their enormous loss. Her family are from Sri Lanka, like many residents of Brent. All nations and all faiths are represented there, and people live alongside one another in remarkable harmony. Does the Home Secretary agree that great care must be taken over the language that we use to describe these atrocities, to ensure that community relations are not inflamed? Good community relations are hard won, but very easily lost.

Charles Clarke: I certainly agree with the hon. Lady, and I have tried to behave and to use care in the way that she suggests. I, too, had a constituent who died on 7 July in those events, and I am acutely aware of the sensitivities that the hon. Lady describes. The most important duty that we have towards the friends and families of those who perished is to learn our lessons and to show how we can build in the future a society that has increased strengths. That is certainly what I will seek to do.

Andrew Dismore: Among the fatalities were four people from my constituency. They were four people from four different ethnic community backgrounds, so the tragedy has seriously affected the whole of my constituency and been a great source of distress to us all. I welcome my right hon. Friend's comments regarding the extremist clerics but, as the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) said, this is not a new issue. Since 1998, I have consistently raised in the House the activities of Omar Bakri Mohammad and others. My right hon. Friend already has the power to remove indefinite leave to remain, which is the basis on which Omar Bakri Mohammad is in the UK. Will my right hon. Friend give urgent consideration to removing his indefinite leave to remain under those powers, so that we can take steps to remove him from this country?

Charles Clarke: As I said, I am not going to comment on individual cases, beyond the general discussions that I have had. However, I shall certainly listen to any representations made by hon. Members after they have had a chance to study my statement today. I accept my hon. Friend's deep concern following the deaths of his constituents.

Julian Lewis: If an individual were totally to condemn suicide bombings in Britain but to condone or applaud them in Baghdad, Ankara or Tel Aviv, would he or she be caught by the new offence of indirect incitement, however it is finally defined?

Charles Clarke: I am not going to prejudge the debate that we shall have in the House and the other place on that legislation. However, I will say that suicide bombing and the killing of civilianswherever it occurs, anywhere in the worldis simply unacceptable, full stop. It is terrorism of whatever description. I do not think that there is a difference between British people who are killed in terrorist outrages such as that in London on 7 July, and people who are killed in terrorist outrages in the places that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. That has to be the motivating spirit behind the way in which we address these questions.

Keith Vaz: May I join others in the universal praise for the Home Secretary and Sir Ian Blair for the exceptional way in which they have conducted themselves over the past few weeks, and for the dialogue that the Home Secretary has personally established with the Muslim community in Britain? One of his proposed measures, however, will put greater pressure on the entry clearance operation. Will he ensure that more resources will be given to the posts abroad that have to deal with these applications, particularly Islamabad and Karachi, where the situation sometimes seems chaotic? Will he give me an assurance that the extra attention that will be paid to these cases will not in any way affect the genuine people who wish to come here as visitors, and who might face the prospect of more refusals because entry clearance officers will obviously have to be very careful? Will he also put these measures to the community groups when he meets them?

Charles Clarke: I appreciate my hon. Friend's remarks, which are genuinely well meant. Yes, I will give the assurance that he seeks that existing procedures will not be slowed up by the process that he has described. I will also give the assurance that I will look into the precise resources implications that will arise. I know that my hon. Friend will agree that the best way to secure strong community relations in this country is to have good, effective, accurate decision making on visa and other applications from other countries throughout the world. That is what we are trying to achieve.

Angela Watkinson: The Home Secretary will know that firefighters are in the front line of emergency rescue operations. Tributes have been paid today to the splendid response of our emergency services in the aftermath of the London bombings. He will know that firefighters are often first on the scene, and are therefore the most vulnerable to secondary devices. He will also know that most insurance policies have exclusion clauses for acts of terrorism. What discussions has he had, and what plans has he, to ensure that, should there be similar incidents, our splendid emergency services have proper protection?

Charles Clarke: The hon. Lady is right. The answer is that I have not yet had any discussions of the kind that she describes, but I am chairing a meeting tomorrow to get responses from a wide range of elements among those who are involved in this approach, to determine what lessons we have learned. I shall ensure that that point is considered at the meeting.

Sadiq Khan: Has my right hon. Friend recently re-read the excellent Home Affairs Committee report on terrorism and community relations? If he has, he will have seen that one of the recommendations made in March 2005 was that the Government should ensure that British Muslims were fully engaged in the formulation of any new anti-terror legislation. What steps is he taking to implement that recommendation? Does he agree that while the consensus between the political parties inside Parliament is welcome, it is even more important for there to be consensus between Parliament and our citizens? All the strands of our community signing up to the anti-terror legislation couldwith a fair wind and God willingresult in there being no more terrorist attacks in the UK.

Charles Clarke: My hon. Friend is completely correct. I have not recently re-read the Home Affairs Committee report but, prompted by his suggestion, I shall certainly take it to the beach this year and make sure that I get on top of it. My hon. Friend is entirely right: the serious point is that it is critical that everything that we do is widely understood and supported in the community. That is why I gave a commitment in my statement to consultation on a variety of the issues that we are talking about, and I can confirm that that will be our approach.

John Hemming: I am sure that the Home Secretary will join me in welcoming the condemnation by Muslims in Birminghamparticularly in the Acocks Green ward of my constituencyof the attacks on London. Does he agree that to achieve a calm and peaceful world we need to stand on two legs: security and justice? We cannot have justice without security but, at the same time, we cannot have security without justice. We need to focus on ensuring that justice is done, nationally and internationally, and that it is seen to be done, for example, under international humanitarian law. The proposal for ID cards was mentioned earlier. Such cards might not be able to prevent attacks such as these, and there is an argument in regard to ID cards about whether one can do things ex-post facto. There is also an argument about whether closed circuit television would be more cost effective.

Charles Clarke: These are serious issues. CCTV is an extraordinary case. Its utility in this investigation has been of particular importance. Where there are serious issues of human rightswhich there arethere needs to be proportionality in dealing with them. That includes CCTV, ID cards and the retention of telecommunications data as evidence. I hope that all parties in the HouseI look to the hon. Gentleman's Front-Bench colleagueswill look at all of these proposals in an appropriately proportionate way.

Chris Mullin: In regard to port security, I was visited last Friday by a constituent who is a coach driver who regularly travels between here and the continent. He told me that securityfor coach drivers, anywayhad deteriorated to the point of being almost non-existent in the past few years. Does my right hon. Friend have any plans to review the situation at ports, particularly in relation to coach drivers? My constituent says that someone trying to smuggle something in would only require an alliance with the coach driver, not the co-operation of passengers. He raises what I think is quite a serious issue, although I appreciate that these days most port security is intelligence led.

Charles Clarke: The national co-ordinators of special branch and ports police are actively reviewing the situation that my hon. Friend describes. I do not know, but I assume that they are considering the coach issue specifically, along with other issues. He is right that it needs examining carefully, and we are doing just that.

Michael Fabricant: I very much welcome the Home Secretary's statement. May I focus on one specific point? He rightly identified the role of websites in inciting violence and said that he would control that. But he knows as well as I do that websites can be generated from outside the United Kingdom. What discussions has he had with internet service providers in the United Kingdom so that if websites are identified as inciters to violence and terrorism, ISPs based in the UK will block them?

Charles Clarke: We have had two types of discussions. The first is with other countries. About a month ago, we had a specific session on this point at the G8 meeting of Interior Ministers in Sheffield, which is relevant to the hon. Gentleman's point, as one or two of the G8 members are places from which websites can be run. We agreed to increase significantly our work to address that point, which is also being addressed in the EU context. Secondly, I have had discussions about such developments with some ISPs, but in the context of child pornography rather than in this context. The hon. Gentleman is right, however, and we will move in both directionsthrough the industry and in relation to particular jurisdictionsto see how we can take matters forward.

John Bercow: The Home Secretary's forthcoming legislation deserves the most painstaking and sympathetic scrutiny. In making the case for it, notwithstanding what he has said about the broadly responsible media reporting of recent events, will he accept the need to underline constantly that we are seeking to upbraid and prevent acts by a tiny minority of people who want to destroy this country? He and all of us recognise that the overwhelming majority of people who seek to come to this country, whether to study, work or be granted asylum, have no ill designs on us and would deprecate terrorist atrocities as vociferously as all of us in the House.

Charles Clarke: The hon. Gentleman's attention to legislation is always painstaking, and I am sure that that will be equally true with this legislation.
	I can give him the assurance that he seeks. We are talking about a tiny number of people, but the deep truth, as he well knows, is that it is possible for even a tiny number of people to do immense damage, so the challenge for us is how to get the right approach, and the legislation is focused on trying to do that.

Paul Rowen: I am sure that the Home Secretary is aware of the activities of several organisations, some of which are banned in other countries, that prey principally on young male Muslims? What does he propose to do to monitor and deal with those, and more important, have the Government given some thought to what positive action we might take to engage some of these disaffected young people to turn them away from some of those organisations?

Charles Clarke: First, I think the measures I announced in my statement will help with some of the issues that the hon. Gentleman describes. Secondly, through the process of the discussions to which I referred earlier today, a conscious and positive effort is taking place to consider how we deal with disaffected young people and communicate more effectively with them.

Tobias Ellwood: The Chancellor's pledge of 10 million to support the survivors and the families of the victims of the London bombings is most welcome and appropriate. I hope that the Home Secretary will agree that had the event taken place abroad, not a penny of this money would be available, because it comes from the criminal injuries compensation scheme, and none of the money is available unless an incident takes place in the UK. Will the Secretary of State therefore reconsider and extend the scheme so that financial support is provided regardless of where the incident takes place? Sadly, the events of last week have shown that terrorism occurs all over the globe, and our support for Britons caught up in such horrific events should also have no boundaries.

Charles Clarke: First, I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's very personal understanding of these issues, and I appreciate the way in which he put his point. I am ready to consider all these questions, but if we are being candid, there is a real problem. The regime under which compensation is dealt with, for people who die in a series of circumstances and in different ways, is complex and confused. As he rightly says, we have a criminal injuries compensation scheme that deals with issues in this country. There are particular schemes to deal with great natural disasters such as the tsunami, and a different set of issues arise particularly when there is strong public feeling, for example about a train accident. It is important to try to find a more equitable approach to tackling these problems, but to be frank I do not have a good solution to offer at the moment, although I will consider his point carefully.

Point of Order

John Hayes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Yesterday evening, there was some confusion in the House, and I am sorry to say that it was caused by the Secretary of State for Transport. In relation to the Select Committee being set up to deal with the Crossrail Bill, he may inadvertently have given the House inaccurate information when he said that
	if someone comes along with a petition on something different, such as varying the line of the route, no Government or, indeed, the House, would say that the Select Committee should not consider it.[Official Report, 19 July 2005; Vol. 436, c. 1129.]
	An instruction to a Select Committee of this type is quite explicit, however. The custom of the House is that such a Select Committee can take petitions only from people with a direct or specific interest in the subject. I would therefore ask not that you make a judgment now, which would be unfair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but that Mr. Speaker makes a considered judgment so that before the matter is taken forward, everyone can be clear about what this Select Committee can or cannot be petitioned on, and what it can or cannot consider.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point of order and it is certainly not a matter on which I could give a decision now. I am sure that the Select Committee will consider the matter in great detail when it starts its deliberations. As regards Mr. Speaker, he will have seen his comments and will no doubt consider them, too.

Vehicle Registration Marks

Mark Hendrick: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make further provision about the retention of vehicle registration marks pending transfer.
	Registration numbers are not items of property in their own right, so it is not possible to acquire legal title to them. They are assigned to, and may be withdrawn from, vehicles rather than keepers, by the Secretary of State, as part of the basic registration and licensing process required by law. The registration number is a unique means of identifying a vehicle, primarily for taxation and law enforcement purposes. It is assigned to a vehicle, and it normally remains with that vehicle until it is broken up, destroyed or sent permanently abroad. To meet the widespread interest in personalised and cherished registration numbers, however, the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency provides special facilities to allow motorists to acquire and retain the use of particular registration numbers.
	The current provisions stifle choice and flexibility for the individual and for business. Purchasers of marks on retention are understandably wary, as the keeper is currently unable to give away rights to the number at the point of sale by detailing a new third party as the grantee. That means that the purchaser of a retained number has no rights to it until he or she assigns that number to a vehicle, despite financial payment already having been passed to the vendor. In addition, the co-operation of the original grantee is required to effect assignment to the purchaser's vehicle. It is also the grantee who retains the right to purchase extensions to the 12-month period of entitlement for holding a number on certificate, even after the sale of a number to a third party. There is clearly potential for considerable loss to the purchaser of a number on certificate should entitlement to a number be lost through the non-co-operation of the grantee, or simply the practical difficulty of locating that person.
	Attractive registration numbers can fetch large sums. I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Minister would be interested in the registration number DT1probably not, because he might then be assumed to be a Minister at the Department for Trade and Industry rather than a transport Minister. If his middle name were Oliver, he might want a DOT registration. I am sure that both would be extremely expensive. There is, however, a growing business out there. One company trading from an office just outside my Preston constituency, newreg.com, has been hugely successful in building up such a business in a legitimate fashion, but elsewhere there have been several cases of organised criminal activity aimed at acquiring valuable numbers by illegal means.
	The transfer and retention facilities must therefore be carefully controlled to cut abuse and protect individuals' interests. Only vehicles that exist and are registered at the DVLA, currently licensed, subject to an annual test and available for inspection may participate. Vehicles that satisfy those requirements are generally easier to identify, so their entitlement to the numbers claimed can be more readily verified. Those measures have proved very effective in limiting the scope for abuse, and they are strongly supported by the police.
	Only the registered keeper of a vehicle may apply to transfer or retain its registration mark. As I said earlier, when a vehicle's registration mark is placed on retention the registered keeper becomes the grantee. The Cherished Numbers Dealers Association has requested the addition of a facility to the retention arrangements, to ease the administrative burden on the companies that make up the association and to improve sales.
	Regulations provide that entitlement to a number that is on retention may pass to a third party only on assignment of the number to that person's vehicle via nominee agreement. That arrangement precludes the disposal of a number to a third party who wishes to keep the number on retention. I propose the introduction of an option for third parties to be granted entitlement as soon as the number is placed on hold under the retention facility.
	The Bill would aid the industry involved in buying, selling and transferring registration mark rights, with no additional costs to Government. It would amend the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 to simplify the administrative process for selling cherished registration numbers, and would be warmly welcomed by many customers as well as cherished number dealers. The new facilities would allow an improved service at no extra cost to the DVLA or its customers, and would not endanger the accuracy of the record or lead to an increase in fraud. I understand that there has been informal consultation between the DVLA and the CNDA, and that both are strongly in favour of the proposed changes. I commend the Bill to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Mark Hendrick, Tony Lloyd, Mr. Jamie Reed, Mr. David Drew, Mr. Greg Pope, Mr. Neil Turner, Mr. Mike Hall, Steve McCabe, Paul Farrelly and Derek Wyatt.

Vehicle Registration Marks

Mr. Mark Hendrick accordingly presented a Bill to make further provision abut the retention of vehicle registration marks pending transfer: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 11 November, and to be printed [Bill 48].

Council Tax

Phil Woolas: I beg to move,
	That the draft Council Tax Limitation (England) (Maximum Amounts) Order 2005, which was laid before this House on 7th July, be approved.
	The order will be made under section 52F(4) of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, which was inserted by the Local Government Act 1999. In my view, its provisions are compatible with the convention rights. It sets out maximum 200506 budget requirements for eight local authorities, which means that they are being capped in year. The eight authorities named in the order, alldistrict councils, are Aylesbury Vale, Daventry, Hambleton, Huntingdonshire, Mid-Bedfordshire, North Dorset, Runnymede and South Cambridgeshire.
	Subject to the House's approval, I will make the order and issue notices to the authorities about their maximum 200506 budget requirementsthat is, their caps. They will then be required to recalculate budget requirements that are at or below the level of the caps. They will also have to send revised council tax bills for the current year.
	On 23 March, my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) made a statement in the House about the capping action that the Government proposed to take in 200506. He pointed out that the Government had first used their reserve capping powers in 200405, and that we had made clear that we were prepared to take even tougher action this year if necessary. He said that he was pleased to see most authorities responding positively to the Government's strong message on council tax. Let me add some figures to those words. That means that 447 of the 456 authorities98 per cent.did not set excessive budget and council tax increases, which is a credit to those authorities individually and to local government as a whole.
	Some authorities, however, did impose unreasonable increases on their council tax payers. My right hon. Friend therefore went on to say on 23 March that the Government were designating nine authorities with a view to capping them in year.

Philip Hammond: Why did the Government recognise the position of low-taxing authorities last year by taking into account the absolute level of tax, and choose not to do so this year? Where is the consistency in that?

Phil Woolas: The hon. Gentleman makes a point that he and his council have made before. It is true that the criteria applied this year were, in some instances, different from those applied in previous years. The Government are trying to avoid the second-guessing whereby councils try to set their tax and budgets at the level that they expect the capping regime to produce, which is a self-fulfilling prophecy. The hon. Gentleman's point has been noted. I hope that if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall be able to answer his question more fully later.

Robert Walter: Will the Minister give way?

Phil Woolas: I will take some interventions when I have set out the principles of the order.
	As I was saying, my right hon. Friend announced that the Government were designating nine authorities. He proposed maximum budget requirements for them at levels that would not be defined as excessive according to principles determined by the Secretary of State. As I said in my written statement to the House on 7 July, when the order was laid, all nine designated authorities challenged the proposed maximum budgets.
	The Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Jim Fitzpatrick), and I met representatives of all those authorities to listen to their cases. Having carefully considered the representations made by all nine of themand, indeed, by Members present in the Chamber todayand having taken into account all relevant information, the Government have reached the following decisions. We have set a maximum budget for seven authoritiesAylesbury Vale, Daventry, Hambleton, Huntingdonshire, Mid-Bedfordshire, North Dorset and Runnymedeat the levels we proposed on 23 March. We have set a maximum budget for South Cambridgeshire that is 1 million higher than the originally proposed cap, in order to allow the authority time to reduce its over-reliance on reserves.
	We have decided to cancel Sedgemoor's designation and to nominate the authority instead. [Interruption.] I am grateful for that acknowledgement. We propose a notional budget of 11,974,169 for 200506, which takes account of the fact that the authority made a genuine mistake in thinking that special expenses did not count against its budget for capping purposes. I should emphasise that in doing so we have not set a precedent for the treatment of special expenses in future capping rounds; authorities should be in no doubt that such expenses form part of their budget requirement. There is no parliamentary procedure involved in setting notional budgets for nominated authorities, so the draft order before us does not include Sedgemoor. But Sedgemoor has 21 days from receipt of the letter in which to challenge its proposed notional budget, should it choose to do so.

Eric Pickles: The hon. Gentleman is laying this order before the House in order to protect council tax payers, but given that none of the capped authorities has a council tax greater than his own authority in Oldham, East, can he explain why he is not capping his own?

Phil Woolas: The hon. Gentleman is talking about actual levels of council tax, but the capping order before us today relates to percentage increases. That is the regime and the policy being pursued. The legislative definitionby which the Secretary of State clearly has to abideis concerned with what constitutes excessive. I understand the point behind the hon. Gentleman's intervention, which other Members representing authorities affected by the measure have also made forcefully, although courteously and reasonably. They have asked whether this is a fair way to proceed, especially in cases where the council tax level is below the average for the type of authority in question. Of course, the counterpoint to that argument is the obvious, arithmetic one: ignoring the average level would simply bring about a self-fulfilling prophecy. We have to look at this issue from the point of view of the council tax payers in the affected areas.

Clive Betts: My hon. Friend mentioned the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford), in which he laid down the criteria and said in conclusion:
	These principles have been applied to all authorities.[Official Report, 23 March 2005; Vol. 432, c. 884.]
	Does my hon. Friend not accept, therefore, that the capping criteria are universaland pretty crude?

Phil Woolas: They are neither crude nor universal. The increases proposed by some of the councils that we are discussing today, even after the cap has been put in place, are still greater than the capped increases being made by other councils. Members present have doubtless prepared speeches pointing out the alleged inconsistency in this viewpoint, but both viewpoints cannot be true. My hon. Friend, who has dealt with these matters for many more years than I have, and who has been a champion of local devolution and local autonomy, suggests that we are going back on our policy. Of course, we have to take into account local authorities' statutory duties and their particular circumstances, so I reject the accusation that the capping criteria are crude and universal. However, I have no doubt that my hon. Friend will carry on his campaign against any form of capping regime.

Robert Walter: The hon. Gentleman referred to excessive spending and said that spending must be in the context of the area in question. Perhaps he can therefore explain why in my authority, a band D council tax increase of 98 is considered excessive, whereas in the neighbouring constituencyit was retained by his colleague, the hon. Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight)Weymouth and Portland borough council has set a council tax increase of 232 for band D properties. Most of my constituents would say that those authorities are in the same area.

Phil Woolas: Of course, different authorities of the same nature in similar geographical areas often have different budgets and apply different council tax increases. I remember following closely debates in this House that compared Lambeth and Wandsworth boroughs. I do not suppose that the residents of Lambeth were satisfied with the outcome, either, but that is the nature of local authorities. One has to start from where one is, and from the point of view of the council tax payer. However, if the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) is successful in catching your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, perhaps he can amplify his point.

Jim Cunningham: Does my hon. Friend not accept that we will always be in this predicament until we sort out the banding system and the standard spending assessment?

Phil Woolas: I take my hon. Friend's point, but it would be wise of me to exercise caution and to refrain from commenting on the banding process at the moment. As we know, the Lyons review is examining the future of local government finance, and the standard spending assessment has been replaced by the formula spending share. Members who have followed these debates closely will have noted that yesterday I laid before the House a written ministerial statement announcing the consultation document on the future of the formula. We are consulting on whether we should continue with what is referred to as the notional level of council tax, which often causes confusion and is used by parties across the political spectrum to attack their political opponents. I understand why that happens, but on the whole it does not benefit local government.
	We believe that the action proposed in the draft order, and the separate action that we are taking in respect of Sedgemoor, represent a measured and proportionate response to excessive increases. As we have said on previous occasions, capping decisions are not taken lightly. Indeed, I should like to make it clear for the benefit of the record that capping is very much a last resort, and that 98 per cent. of councils avoided the capping regime. In the first instance, it is for local authorities to set their council tax levels and to justify them to their local electors. But the Government also have a duty to protect council tax payers from the small percentage of authorities that set excessive increases. Indeed, the House agreed to that principle when it discussed local government finance legislation.

Anne McIntosh: Why is the Minister so hooked on percentages? Surely the bottom line for council tax payers such as me who live in Hambleton is that it has the third lowest council tax in the country. Why is he penalising prudent Conservative-run councils that are keeping a low council tax?

Phil Woolas: The hon. Lady has made a very strong case on behalf of her area on this issue, and in respect of other difficulties that it has suffered in recent times. I should perhaps take advice from those hon. Gentlemen who are about to instruct Hansard to insert laughter, but I must say that there is no party political element in this matter[Laughter.] There is no pre-ordained position and even the most cynical of Front-Bench Opposition spokesmen on local government could not contrive to imagine that I would be ingenious enough to predict that this would affect only Conservative councils. Indeed, some of the local authorities affected have independent, Labour and Liberal Democrat members, some of whom are opposed to the decision and some of whom are in favour.
	I believe that I have already answered the substantial point made by the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss   McIntosh), but let me cite two reasons for our decision. One is that we have to start from where we are. It is the excessiveness that is at issue, as specified under the legislation, and I am rightly obliged to follow up what that legislation specifies. It is the excessiveness involved in moving from A to B that matters. Secondly[Interruption.] I am going to repeat this second point because the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) is looking either threatening or puzzledand quite possibly both. If he can contain himself and listen to my argument first, he can then disagree, although he will doubtless disagree with me whatever I say. My second argument is that using percentages covers the point about step changes and differences. Percentages help to address the real problem faced by Governments of any colourthe danger of the self-fulfilling prophecy.

Alistair Burt: I thank the Minister for his courtesy in giving way and for the way in which he is manifestly making the best of an unbelievably appalling job. Whatever the formulaic procedure, I put it to the Minister that what constituents demand of us and what the people demand of the Government is a judgment: sometimes something that is set out in black and white becomes patently ridiculous or nonsensical, at which stage the Government should take the decision not to proceed with it. If the Minister applied his personal judgment to what he is reading out, he would not be in the position that he has to defend this afternoon.

Phil Woolas: I thank the hon. Gentleman, who is among the most courteous Members of the House and a champion of his constituency. I recognise that what he says today is spoken on behalf of his constituency. The House will notice that no Member who has intervened so far, apart perhaps from my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts), has disagreed with the principle of capping[Interruption.]

Several hon. Members: rose

Phil Woolas: Well, my preparations for this debate have just proved to be accurate in this regard, because if we can have a statement from the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman to say that his party would rule out any form of cappinguniversal, crude, targeted or otherwisethat would be interesting to hear. [Interruption.] Already, I hear some qualifications, but I look forward to Conservative policy being put clearly on the record when the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) speaks. I am sure that the hon. Member for Brent, East (Sarah Teather) will want to put her party's position on the record, too. Very high local income tax rates would, of course, follow any such pronouncement.

Andrew Lansley: We were on the subject of excessive spending and the Minister implied that he was effectively constrained by the legislation, but he knows that that is not true. The intention behind the Government's changes of 1999 was precisely to allow discretion in respect of the circumstances in which capping is applied as an exceptional measure. As far as South Cambridgeshire is concerned, the Minister has demonstrated such discretion by raising the cap, but where in the local representations has anyone suggested to the Minister that reducing the spending of South Cambridgeshire district council by 13 per cent. in comparison with last year's budget is an appropriate use of discretion?

Phil Woolas: There will inevitablyand, I suppose, quite rightlybe some hon. Members who will want to make specific points about the budgets of their own councils and the consequential council tax increases. I will attempt to answer all the points if we can proceed to debate the issues sensibly within the time allotted. I can tell the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire that the points that his council made have been listened to and its representations and correspondence have been answered, although not necessarily to its satisfaction.
	I am confident, to answer the point raised by the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), that these decisions are consistent not just with the letter of the legislation, but with the general point that the Government have a duty to perform on behalf of council tax payers. In 98 per cent. of cases, the policy has been successful.

Several hon. Members: rose

Phil Woolas: I will give way one more time, but I am conscious that Mr. Speaker has had to apply limits to Back-Bench speakers and that every intervention I take limits the opportunities of hon. Members to contribute to the debate.

Sarah Teather: I just want to put on record our party's opposition to capping in principle and remind the Minister that it was not so long ago that his party was also opposed to capping in principle. How far we have moved since!

Phil Woolas: I thank the hon. Lady for being clear about her party's policythat there will be no capping regime of any sort whatever under a Liberal Democrat regime.

Jonathan Djanogly: rose

Phil Woolas: I really must move on. As I have already said, the more interventions that I take, the fewer the opportunities for hon. Members to contribute to the debate.
	The hon. Member for Brent, East made her point clearly. To be fairsomething that I am always in favour ofmy own party's manifesto, on which we fought the election, included the point that a limited capping regime was our policy. It is the case that, three years ago, council tax increased by 12.9 per cent. on average, before the capping regime, yet this year the average increase was 4.1 per cent. Those two statistics are not coincidental.
	In laying this order, we are keeping our promise to act on excessive council tax increases. That promise was made in our manifesto. Opposition Members are too easily dismissive of another important pointthe Government have provided all authorities with grant increases in line with or above inflation in all of the last three years. Overall, the funding that we have provided for local government has increased in real terms by 33 per cent. since 1997a real-terms increase of a third in the Government grant to local authorities. That compares favourably with what came before us, Mr. Deputy Speaker, although I do not want to say that all the evil was done under the last Conservative Governmentjust most of it. It compares with a cut in real terms of 7 per cent. in the four years before 1997. The financial regime and the financial climate for local authorities has changed substantially. In that context, local authorities have to look long and hard before proposing significant council tax increases. If central Government were to propose significant or, indeed, any increases in other taxation policy, Opposition Members would not be[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar says from a sedentary position that we have proposed other increases

Eric Pickles: Through the council tax.

Phil Woolas: The hon. Gentleman may say that, but that is the very issue that I am addressing. People cannot have their cake and eat itin that regard or any other.
	Given the Government's substantial investment in local government, there is simply no justification for authorities setting excessive council tax increases. We have shown over the past two years that we will take action to deal with that. No authority should assume that it is somehow immune to or exempt from possible capping action in the future.
	As I said, our general election manifesto reaffirmed our commitment to use these powers if necessary and as a last resort. It is up to authorities to take that message on board.
	Those hon. Members minded to oppose this order must answer the following questions. Do they support percentage council tax increases that go well into double figures? Do they feel that the Government should take no action on increases of up to 100 per cent.? Will they go out and defend such increases to their constituents?

Philip Hammond: I will.

Phil Woolas: Well, that is for each hon. Member to decide. We must not forget the public in this debate, and they have made their views clear. They are not prepared to accept excuses for excessive council tax increases

Jonathan Djanogly: Will the Minister give way?

Phil Woolas: The hon. Gentleman is getting very excited, so I will give way to him.

Jonathan Djanogly: The Minister says that he is responding to what residents and constituents have said, but that is not the case in Huntingdonshire. At the polls, people elected a Conservative administration based on the budget that he is now capping.

Phil Woolas: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention and I take it that, if he gets a chance to speak in the debate, he will make it clear that helike the hon. Member for Brent, Eastis opposed to any capping regime. I look forward to his contribution on that matter. I can assure the House that my folder is brimming with contrary reactions from people in respect of the council tax levels that have been set.
	As I said, the public have made their views clear: they are not prepared to accept excuses for excessive council tax increases, either this year or in the future. The Government will not accept such excuses either. I therefore urge hon. Members to support the order.

Eric Pickles: The Minister said that his folder is brimming with correspondence from people in the various capped authorities making it clear that they want the capping regime. He would do the House an enormous service by publishing those letters in the Library. I suspect that the folder must be very thin.
	The Minister has my sympathy. I have responded to capping orders such as this for some years, and I have never seen a Minister more uncomfortable or embarrassed. He has been given a dreadful task for his first major appearance in this role, and he is diminished in his office as a result. Those above him have sent him to the Dispatch Box like Captain Ahab in search of the great white whale, but all he has done is harpoon a handful of minnows.
	Residents in Labour authorities have seen their council tax go through the roof year after year, while the Government have stood idly by. Now, the Government have sprung into action to cap eight Conservative authorities, and the weekly savings of all eight in total amount to less than a packet of crisps per council tax payer. The Local Government Association, at its press conference of 7 July, rightly called the capping decision stupid. It expressed its dismay at the decision and said that it would leave local people short changed.
	The LGA's Labour group leader is Sir Jeremy Beecham, a man much respected in this House. He said:
	We are, and have always been, opposed to capping.
	So let us be clear: the eight councils involved would not have been capped if they had imposed the same increases in council tax last year. I can go further, and say that no capping regime under any previous Labour or Conservative Government would have caught these eight councils. They have been capped only because, close to a general election, the Government devised a set of rules to catch Conservative authorities.
	The decision is not an administrative one, but represents political vindictiveness at its most base. All the authorities being capped are low-tax authorities. Compared to neighbouring authorities, they all charge residents less in council tax, even after original proposed increases for this year have been taken into account. These eight authorities charge low council tax, and yet they deliver high-quality public services.

Phyllis Starkey: That is debatable.

Eric Pickles: The hon. Lady says that that is debatable, but that is what Government statistics show. Is she disagreeing with her own Government? The Government's comprehensive performance assessment regime rated three of the eight authoritiesHambleton, Huntingdonshire and Runnymedeas excellent. Aylesbury Vale was rated good, and only one of the eight was rated below fair. If the hon. Lady wants to engage in a debate about the performance of those authorities, she ought to know that Opposition Members would be very happy to oblige her. We recognise a good council when we see one.
	When the Government introduced the CPA inspection regime they made it clear that councils rated as excellent or good would not be subject to capping. The order before us today shows that to be yet another broken promise. Nearly all the authorities being capped are rural based. It can cost to provide the same services in rural communities as are provided in towns and cities but, despite that, the authorities covered by the order provide good services for their residents at low cost.
	Only one authoritySedgemoor district councilhas escaped capping this year. I wondered about that, and decided to have a close look. It has escaped because it did not impose much of an increase in the first place. However, a town council within Sedgemoor district council area is controlled by the Labour party. It was decided that that town council should put a significant amount into this year's increase, whereas the sensible thing to do would have been to spread that amount around. Perhaps the Minister could not bring himself to cap an authority whose increases were caused by fellow Labour party members. There is clearly one rule for the Conservative party, and another rule for Labour.

Clive Betts: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Eric Pickles: After what he said about crude and universal capping, how could I refuse the hon. Gentleman?

Clive Betts: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has not refused me, but I want to be certain about where his party is coming from on this issue. Does he oppose the order because of a technical disagreement about the capping criteria, which he believes are wrong, or is the Conservative party now against any form of capping whatsoever?

Eric Pickles: When I sat on the Government Benches, I made a robust defence of capping, as Hansard will show. I do not want to compare myself to the great English martyr Cranmer and pretend that making that speech was equivalent to putting my hand into the flame, but it is probable that a Conservative Government would retain capping as a reserve power. However, I am certain that we would not waste anyone's time targeting low-taxation and high-efficiency councils that are little more than minnows. I can give a clear commitment on that.
	I shall offer a few examples. After the cost of re-billing is taken into account, the saving accruing from capping Aylesbury Vale amounts to 1p a week for each member of the local population. I had the opportunity to listen to the Minister of Communities and Local Government address the LGA conference at Harrogate, when he said that he wanted a partnership with local government. He claimed to have no desire to micro-manage local government, but this order represents micro-management of local government right down to a single penny. It is a very bad start for the right hon. Gentleman and an even worse one for the Minister.
	Daventry charges the second lowest council tax in Northamptonshire. Its band D charge amounts to 125.65, which is some 20 lower than Labour-run Corby. Daventry is being capped and Corby is not. Daventry district council has lost out significantly on housing revenue subsidies, which the Government abolished. The process of building up its balances has caused the increase, 10 per cent. of which simply results from the change in housing revenue subsidies. If the figure for Aylesbury Vale is 1p a week per resident, what is it for Daventry? It is 2.5p, when rounded up.
	Hambleton district council set a band D council tax of 68, which compares with 131.76 in Selby, next door; 159.86 in Richmondshire; 152.43 in Ryedale; 172.59 in Scarborough; and 177.72 in Harrogate. Even with this year's increase, the council tax set in Hambleton remains the lowest in the area and one of the lowest in the country. When the cost of re-billing is taken into account, the saving is thruppence a week. I know that the people of Yorkshire recognise value, but I suspect that thruppence a week tries their patience a little.
	Huntingdonshire district council is rated as an excellent council under the CPA regime. Its council tax remains one the lowest in the country and, even after this year's increase, moves from being the second lowest in Cambridgeshire to the lowest. After the cost of re-billing is taken into account, the saving is tuppence a week. In Mid-Bedfordshire, after taking account of the same cost, the saving is reduced to thruppence a week.
	As has been said, compared to other authorities in the area, North Dorset district council charges one of the lowest council taxes. East Dorset has set a band D council tax of 154.34. The figure for West Dorset is 110.70. Labour-controlled Weymouth and Portland has set a tax of a staggering 222.11. After the cost of re-billing is taken into account, the amount saved is 8p a week per resident.
	Runnymede borough council set the lowest council tax in Surrey and is one of the lowest council tax charging authorities in the country. Let us compare those figures with Liberal Democrat-controlled Waverley borough council's band D council tax of 138.78. Lib-Lab run Woking has set a tax of 174.11; and the figure in independent-run Epsom and Ewell is 133.34. When Runnymede's excellent CPA rating is added to that, it is clear that Runnymede borough council is a low-taxing, high-delivery local authority. The cost of re-billing is 5p a week per resident.
	The figures for South Cambridgeshire district council seem high, but they must be set against the fact that South Cambridgeshire has for years consistently charged a lot less than its neighbours. In 200405, South Cambridgeshire charged a band D council tax of 70. Other authorities in Cambridgeshire charged as follows: Cambridge city, 131.65; East Cambridgeshire district council, 149.00; and Fenland, 195.51. Even with the doubling of the council tax, South Cambridgeshire district council moved from being the lowest charging council tax authority in Cambridgeshire to the second lowest. After the cost of re-billing is taken into account, we are talking about a saving of 36p a week per resident.
	After the whole process, most councillors in this country are Conservatives. We are the largest party in local government, and we produce the lowest figures. If people vote Labour, they are likely to pay 74 a year more tax at band D. If they vote Liberal Democrat, they are likely to pay 83 a year more.
	The final bill on the doorstep for each of those capped authorities will be significantly lower than the price paid by council tax payers in the Prime Minister's constituency and considerably lower than in the Minister's constituency. The increase in those taxes is virtually indistinguishable from the figures for Sedgefield district council, South Tyneside council and Oldham council. There is something deeply wrong with the assessment. I suspect that, if we count up all the savings and the costs of the Minister's time, this debate and the order, the Minister, by his foolishness, has almost certainly cost the taxpayer of this country a far greater amount than he has saved. He should look discomfited. This is a disgrace. This dreadful decision sends out the worst kind of message to local government. It tells local government, Do as you're told, or we'll have you.

Several hon. Members: rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the House that Mr. Speaker has placed a 10-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches, which applies from now on.

Clive Betts: I want to make it clear from the beginning that, unfortunately, I will not be able to support the Government on this issue today, just as I was unable to do so last year. I am against capping in principleI always have been, and I suspect that I probably always will be, despite the arguments that my hon. Friends use today and that will probably be used at the end of the debate. Equally, I will not go into the Lobby with the Conservative party because its argument is about the technicalities of how capping has been used and which councils have been caught. That is not a fundamental opposition to capping. Indeed, many Conservative Members were responsible for much more draconian capping regimes when they were in government, which particularly hit authorities such as mine in Sheffield.

David Howarth: If the hon. Gentleman will not join the Conservative party in the Lobby, will he join us? We are opposed, as he is, to capping in principle.

Clive Betts: I appreciate the fact that the Liberal Democrats oppose capping in principle, but the main Opposition party clearly has a different reason for opposing the order on this occasion. I am stating my principles, and I shall abstain in any Division on the order as a result.
	Fundamentally, I do not accept that there is any difference between Labour capping and Tory capping. I heard what my hon. Friend the Minister said earlier, but the universal criteria that have been laid down and applied to all councils are pretty crude. The criteria conflict with the commitments that we made before we came into government, and I will remind the House of them. It is probably appropriate that I quote the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my right hon. Friend and colleague the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), whom Hansard records as saying:
	My answer to that is as simple as my answer to all questions about poll tax capping. It is our job to make democracy work better, not to abolish it.[Official Report, 12 July 1990; Vol. 176, c. 499.]
	I agree with my right hon. Friend on that point.
	In 1997, when we came into government, we signed the European charter of local self-government, which gives councils rights to raise revenue locally. I accept that there are caveats: councils must work within statute and within the national economic policy in determining their spending. Again, I quote the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), who told the House:
	The Labour party is wholly and unequivocally opposed to the capping of a council's budget. It is an abuse of central power, it demeans democracy, it undermines the right of local people to decide what services they are ready and will to pay for, it is in breach of one promise after another from the Conservative party, it serves no economic purpose, and it has not worked in its own terms.[Official Report, 9 June 1993; Vol. 226, c. 385.]
	That is a fairly powerful argument against capping, and I support that view.
	It is rather sad when parties in opposition become much stronger champions of local democracy than when in government. That applies in spades to the Conservative party, which is now revising what it is prepared to do in the name of local democracy in a way that is completely contrary to everything that it did when in government.

Brian Binley: Does the hon. Gentleman not think the same thing about the Labour party now that it is in office?

Clive Betts: What I have to say very simplyI was going to come on to this pointis that the Government have done many things that have carried through from opposition to government the promises that they made in respect of local authority resources, borrowing, prudential guidelines and the right to trade. A number of rights and powers have been given to local authorities in contradiction to the policy of the Conservative party, which constantly took away rights and powers. I just happen to believe that the capping order today is not one of the good things that the Government have done.

Eric Pickles: The hon. Gentleman stands before us a paragon of virtue, but I recall his period of distinguished service in the Whips Office during which he forced several of his colleagues to take some pretty anti-local government decisions. Does he regret that? Does he wish to recant now? He has a sympathetic audience; we will be kind to him.

Clive Betts: I do not think that I ever forced anyone to do anything when I was a Whip. I might have used my powers of persuasion on occasion, but I am always open to persuasion myself.
	I shall not engage in argument over whether the budgets and council tax set by any of the councils in question are right, because I do not know whether they are right or excessive, or whether the councils are efficient or inefficient, and I do not believe that it is my job or that of any Member of Parliament to second-guess decisions that are the responsibility and the role of locally elected councils, which should be accountable to their electorate. That is how such decisions should be made. I honestly believe that when they troop into the Lobby, most Members of this House will not have a clue what they are doingwhat impact the order will have on local services in the areas affected by it. That is why it is important to leave those decisions to local councillors and the electorate to whom they are responsible.
	In the 1980s, many Labour Members, I among them, stood in solidarity against the capping regimes of the then Conservative Government. We stood with local councillors, local councils, council workers and local voters. We were not arguing about the correctness or otherwise of the spending level that any of the councils had determined; we were supporting the basic principle of local democracy and local determination of levels of spending and tax. We did not call it subsidiarity back then, but that, in effect, was what we were championing.
	The Government are rightly worried about voter turnout at both general and local elections, but capping is not only about central control of local councils; it is about removing the democratic rights of local residents, removing voter choice and devaluing local elections. In my view, capping is a fundamental challenge to the very basis of local democracy. To quote again:
	The capping system is patently undemocratic. It serves no wider economic purpose in the control of public expenditure.[Official Report, 9 June 1993; Vol. 226, c. 387.]
	That was my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn. His statement is just as true now as it was in 1993.

Sarah Teather: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts), who so eloquently stated the case against capping and the principles behind this debate.
	For me, the order is without doubt the most extraordinary, absurd and vindictive measure that I have seen since entering Parliament. Labour's historic third term has produced legislationwith all the civil service manpower that such legislation entails, with all the ministerial time and the meetings with councilsfor what? It is to save taxpayers in eight authorities as little as 4p a week2 a yearenough to buy perhaps two packets of Polos. In the House of Commons Strangers Bar, it might just buy a pint of Guinness. I cannot help wondering whether the Minister should just save us all time and trouble by popping down to Aylesbury Vale and buying all the good voters a pint; then we could all go home. That would be a lot cheaper than going through the rigmarole of laying an order, voting on it and asking councils to re-bill. We seem to be engaged in the most ridiculous process that I have ever seen, and I hope that I do not see anything more ridiculous in my time as an MP. [Hon. Members: You'll be lucky.] Hon. Members should not get too excited.
	As the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe said, capping is an affront to local democracy. It undermines local people's right to decide what services they want and what they are willing to pay for, and it completely undermines local government's authority to plan, prioritise and make decisions. As he so eloquently pointed out, not so long ago Labour Members who are now Ministers were making precisely the same point. Surely the final arbiter of choice must always be the ballot box: it is for local electors to decide what they are willing to pay for and when it is time to get rid of a council that has set excessive council tax increases.
	It is no good the Conservatives bleating on about whales and minnows, because it was they who 20 years ago invented rate capping; consequently, they have only themselves to blame. It seems that their policy is to oppose capping when it involves Conservative councils, but they need to oppose capping in principle if they want to be taken seriously.

Alistair Burt: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Sarah Teather: I shall do so willingly in the hope that the hon. Gentleman will join me in opposing capping in principle.

Alistair Burt: I shall ask the hon. Lady the question I wanted to ask rather than follow her lead. I am listening to her speech with great interest; as the rest of us intend to do, she is making a perfectly sensible case against rate capping. Before criticising the Conservatives, will she be good enough to send a copy of her wonderful speech to Councillor Neil Cliff, leader of the Liberal Democrats on Mid Bedfordshire district council, who has found a way to support the Government's decision to rate cap the council?

Sarah Teather: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will send a copy of my speech. I cannot comment on the details of his local council. I am not divinely all-knowingat least not yet.
	Even if we accepted the principle of capping, as some people do although my party does not, the execution of the exercise defies logic. As the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) pointed out, the proposed council tax increases are tiny in cash terms. The councils concerned are among the lowest-taxing councils in the country: Hambleton has the third lowest council tax of any district and all the councils are in the lower quartile of council taxes, with the exception of South Cambridgeshire district council, which is still in the bottom half of the council tax table. It is mathematically ludicrous and meaningless to cap on the basis of percentage increases in such small tax bases. The Minister claims that the low taxes have been taken into account, but that is patent nonsense. As the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman pointed out, Oldham will have a very large council tax increase53.75 on the band D rate has been proposedcompared with the increases of about 12 that have been set by the councils affected by the order. Capping them seems utterly ridiculous. Far be it from me to accuse the Minister of macho posturing when he is not much taller than me[Laughter.] I simply cannot see the purpose of going though such a fuss and performance in the newspapers to secure such tiny savings for taxpayers.

Phil Woolas: I shall not respond to the hon. Lady's sizeist comment, although my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) would have something to say if he were here.
	Does the hon. Lady accept my point that the capping regime affects all councils and that the 98 per cent. of councils that did not impose excessive increases must also be taken into account?

Sarah Teather: I do not understand the Minister's point. The capping process is wholly arbitrary. I am entirely opposed to capping on principle and I see no reason to except the councils affected by the order.
	Notwithstanding the taxpayers' money wasted debating the order in Parliament, the cost to the councils concerned will be enormous. Hambleton, which is proposing a 12 a year band D increase, estimates that re-billing will cost 50,000. The cost in Daventry will be twice thatabout 100,000. In a final Kafka-esque twist, the councils must find savings to cover the cost of rebilling at the same time as they have to find the savings imposed by capping. That makes the whole situation even worse. The order is not about prudential financial planning; it is absurd centralisation gone completely mad.
	It is worth considering the background to the increases. Many of the district councils in question had among the smallest percentage increases in grant five years in successionindeed, Runnymede had the second-lowest increase in the country over that period. This mad order goes against all the warm and fluffy noises that the Government have been making about new localism and valuing local government. Where are the supposed freedoms and flexibilities for the three councils that have been judged excellent by the stringent standards of the Government's own comprehensive performance assessment?
	This is not about whether or not a council is judged excellent or whether or not its grant rise is higher than another council's. It is about the principle of local democracy, as the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe pointed out. It is about local people being able to decide what should be spent on their services and being able to kick out a council if they are not happy with it, or vote it back in if they are happy with its priorities. If the Government seriously wish to tackle council tax rises, they must deal with the balance of funding crisis, and give more power to councils to raise more money themselves. They could start by relocalising business rates. If they seriously wish to end public angst about council tax rises they could scrap the tax, not cap the tax. They could introduce a tax based on people's ability to pay so that yearly rises would not fall so heavily on the elderly and the low-paid.
	This is another piece of centralising nonsense from an uninterested Government who are antagonistic towards local democracy. I urge all hon. Members of sound mind to vote against the motion.

William Hague: As so often, it was my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) who hit the nail on head. He said that he could not accept that the Minister really believed in the case he was putting to the House. It is a tribute to the Minister that he put the best possible gloss on the argument for the order, but it is deeply worrying that, even after he had done so, it is still one of the weakest cases for a Government order that I have heard in the House for many years.
	An innocent observer who came to the Chamber today might think that our debate was about excessive council taxes. They might expect us to focus on councils that charge a huge amount in taxation or whose council tax is higher than the average, leading to objections from local people and the need for Government intervention. They would be astonished to discover that the order is not about that at all, and deals with some of the most responsible councils in the country that set some of the lowest council taxes. They would be even more astonished to discover that councils such as Hambleton district council, which my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) and I have the privilege of representing, are affected. The council has the highest possible rating for financial management, according to the Government's audit assessment; it sets a council tax less than half the predicted figure under the Government's own formula spending share; for the past three years, its council tax increases have been less than a third of the national average; its 10-year financial strategy is financially robust and is supported locally; and this year it is proposing an increase at band D of 12.
	Most people would give their eye teeth to live under such a council. The vast majority of people in this country would love to do so, so it is extraordinary that councils that fulfil all those criteria are among those whose budgetary freedom is to be taken away under the order. Hambleton district council has the third lowest council tax of any shire district, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) and the hon. Member for Brent, East (Sarah Teather) have pointed out. It proposes an 80 council tax at band D, compared with the 182 suggested by the FSS. The Minister knows the background that made that figure possible. The council transferred its housing stock in 1993, and achieved strong balances as a result. In the past 12 years, it has returned nearly 19 million to local taxpayers. For a time, it set its council tax at or near zero, but as its reserves fall it has planned a series of rises that are small in cash terms but which allow modest improvements in services while keeping within a low and disciplined budget.
	That is a sensible approach to local government. The problem is blindingly obviousthe Government think only in percentage terms, never in cash terms. If a council starts at or near zero, the slightest increase is obviously a huge percentage. According to the Minister's own criteria, if a council set a council tax of 10 and raised it to 11 that would be regarded as an excessive increase. In his opening speech he asked whether we would be prepared to defend the council tax increases in our constituencies. My answer is yes. I am extremely happy to do so, because my council's policies, including its council tax levels, are very popular. Will the Minister therefore answer a question from me in his winding-up speech? Does he acknowledge that a 10 council tax raised to 11 would be deemed excessive and capped under his criteria? It defies all common sense to judge only by percentages at such levels. No Minister would believe that excessive taxation is being levied in Hambleton district council or most of the other councils that we are debating today. No Minister believes that it is a badly run council. Even more importantly, no local taxpayer or voter thinks that the increase is excessive. The council has received a total of five complaints about the level of council taxI have received oneso the capping is bizarre and unjustified.
	The capping powers that the House provided for the Government were not designed to be applied to the third-lowest taxing authority in the country. The Minister is sending a bad message to local government: if it is responsible, it will ultimately be penalised; if it has a 10-year strategy it will be forced to abandon it; and if it carries local voters with it that can nevertheless be disregarded by the Government. The bizarre and counterproductive nature of the proposals are demonstrated by what will happen in practice if Hambleton district council, for example, is capped under the order. First, it must deliver a refund to council tax payers. At band D, that will be 5.63. My hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar has pointed out that each household will therefore only receive a few pennies a week. More than 50,000 will be spent on re-billing. At band A the refund will be only a couple of pounds for each household for the whole year, but the re-billing will cost nearly 1.50. That is the weighty and supposedly wise decision that the Deputy Prime Minister has made. It is the ultimate example of micro-management.
	Secondly, the council will be less able to fund any improvements in local services for which local people have asked, particularly because since the capping decision it has incurred additional costs of 100,000 to clear up after the severe floods in North Yorkshire. My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York has often spoken to Ministers about the floods, because they affected her constituency even more seriously than mine. The Government have not made any allowance for that in their decisions.
	Thirdly, and most alarmingly, if the same criteria were applied in future, either the council would have to use up its balances extremely quickly and cut spending by 28 per cent. in the next few years, leaving it with a budget below the statutory minimum or, having exhausted its balances on an accelerated timetable imposed by the Government, it would have to introduce a council tax increase of 91 per cent. in three years' time. I therefore have another question for the Minister. As the Government think that they know better than Hambleton district council and all the people who live in the area, and as they must have thought about the consequences of their capping policy if it continued for several years in a row, do they wish it to plan for a huge council tax rise in a few years' time or for a major reduction in services? It is no good the Minister saying that that is up to the council, because by their actions today the Government are implying that that is not the case. They must therefore take responsibility, whether there is a large council tax rise or a budget below even the statutory minimum in a few years' time.
	It is hard to escape the conclusion, having examined all the arguments, that there was a political motivation before the general election behind the decisions on council tax. I hoped that with the appointment of a new Minister things would change after the election. I did not expect the Minister to say that the proposal was unfair and destructive, although we would have wanted him to do so, but I hoped that he would let it fall quietly to one side. There will be no thanks from local voters to the Government for making this decision, only anger that money is to be wasted on bureaucracy and local wishes overridden.
	Last week at the Local Government Association conference, the Minister of Communities and Local Government said:
	We need to develop a deal for devolution . . .Your starting point should be that power is exercised at the lowest sensible level.
	This week, only five days after he delivered that speech, we have seen how utterly worthless those words have already become. Whatever the motives of the Government, exercising power at the lowest sensible level is certainly not one of them, and it is sad that neither is local democracy or the good financial management of local government, both of which are being damaged today.

Anne McIntosh: It gives me great pleasure to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague). The most pertinent point that he mentioned is the 50,000 cost of reissuing council tax bills. The alternative is to reduce services.
	I repeat my declaration that my husband and I have chosen to live in Hambleton district because of the excellent services that the council provides and the modest council tax it charges for them. It is interesting to note that in the order the Government have not issued a regulatory impact assessment. That has not been prepared because the Secretary of State cannot make assumptions about which services and activities may be affected when authorities calculate lower budget requirements.
	I follow my right hon. Friend's question to the Minister with a modest question of my own. The Secretary of State may not be prepared to say which services should be cut, but which services does the Minister think should be cut? I pay tribute to what Hambleton council has done. It is a prudent council that is known for its excellence, as my right hon. Friend said. It is also a listening council that has just conducted a consultation exercise, about which the Minister heard when my right hon. Friend and I made representations to him.
	As a result of that consultation, the council has decided to commit an additional 500,000 to improve housing benefit performance; to improve development control performance; to introduce additional half-fare travel for young people, recognising that in a rural district there are distinct access problems; and to pay for patrol wardens to assist with a cleaner environment and the control of nuisance behaviour and fear of crime. That has been decided even before the council considers its obligations under the Clean Neighbourhood and Environment Act 2005. Having served for some two months on the Committee that considered the Bill, I know how onerous those duties will be. The council will also improve homeless support, recognising the increased number of homeless people. Top of the list, as my right hon. Friend said, is the council's response to the major flooding in the district, which we have experienced three times in the past five yearsin Thirsk in Hambleton district within the Vale of York twice during that time, and in 2000, 2003 and 2005 in the whole of Hambleton district.
	The Minister has not responded to my letter to him and my plea not to proceed with the order in the light of an application from Hambleton district council and North Yorkshire county council under the Bellwin formula. Why are the Department and the Minister not reading across to their responsibilities in that regard? The threshold is 1.5 million, which the council must first spend from its own funds. It has therefore rightly chosen to go in with North Yorkshire county council and Ryedale district council as well. The Minister must live up to his responsibilities. Against that background of three floods in five years, with an application to be submitted within a month of the floods of 19 June, it is irresponsible of the Minister to proceed with the order. My first question to him was which services he suggests Hambleton should cut. My second question is what are the implications of the capping scheme for the Bellwin formula?
	My third question, which I put to the Minister in an earlier intervention, is will he please drop his obsession with percentages and reward councils such as Hambleton district council for the excellent services that they provide, for the prudence with which they seek to deliver those services, and for achieving the third lowest council tax in the country? I pay tribute to the council's performance and to the brilliance of its staff. It must be a kick in the teeth and a slap in the face for those staff, who often work in extremely difficult conditions. In the recent floods, staff from Hambleton district council were among the first, with the emergency services and North Yorkshire county council, to step into people's homes late in the evening of Sunday 19 June and put themselves in harm's way when everyone else was running away from the floods. It is insulting that the Minister does not recognise the services that council staff provide.
	It is true that, technically, the order caps councils that breach a 5 per cent. threshold for council tax increases, yet the tax in Hambleton district council is among the lowest in the country. Will the Minister confirm that the rule setting the 5 per cent. threshold was published after the process for setting the council tax was in place for the current tax year? Is that fair? Is that due process? Could not that be challenged in law?
	Rebilling will cost 50,000. How does the Minister envisage that that will take place? In its view, the council is being penalised for having an historically low council tax, a policy that it intends to maintain into the future. It intends to force a solution to deal with excessive taxation, as my right hon. Friend described. Any cash increase on a low council tax base is bound to be higher in percentage terms than in other authorities that have higher council tax bases than Hambleton. The Minister designated the lowest district council tax, including parishes, for 200405, and Hambleton district council is the third lowest in 200506. That position will not change after the capping order, but the effect of capping will be to destroy the prudent financial management that has delivered excellent services at low cost, resulting in a 40 per cent. cut in budget over 10 years. It will leave the council financially non-viable.
	The Minister will create a situation that requires a massive council tax increase in future for the council to remain viable, rather than the sustainable increase set out in the council's financial plans. Like my right hon. Friend, I urge the Minister to consider the implications of the message going out from the House this afternoon. It is perverse to penalise a prudent council that is providing excellent services and that has the third lowest council tax in the country. It is even more perverse to cap it in a year in which it has suffered its third severe flooding in less than five years. With his decision he has burdened the council with the additional cost of 50,000 to reverse the council tax bills. His policy of capping is inconsistent with previous Government commitments that local taxes should be determined, as my right hon. Friend said, by local councils. I urge the Minister to withdraw the order or the House to reject it.

Andrew Lansley: I am glad to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) and my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh), who spoke on behalf of Hambleton district council. Their explanation of that council's circumstances illustrates the position of South Cambridegeshire. My right hon. Friend said that if the council proceeds in the way that the Government demands of it, in a few years it will have to choose between a large increase in council tax or a major reduction in services.
	In recent years South Cambridgeshire district council, with large reserves, chose to subsidise its council tax and keep it low. In the current financial year it had to choose between a substantial increase in council tax or a substantial reduction in services. After 2,500 responses from people across the district, the council decided that there should be an increase from 70 on band D council tax to 140, which the Minister will say is an excessive increase because it has doubled. Of course, however, the increase was proposed from a low base and a below-average shire district council tax. It was proposed after years of subsidising the council tax out of reserves.
	The only alternative, which the Government now seem set upon demanding of South Cambridgeshire district council, is a substantial reduction in services. As the Minister said, the Government proposed a 3.6 million reduction to the budget requirement. After receiving representations, they changed that to 2.6 million. However, we have the problem that the budget requirement, as the Government calculate it, is not a measure of a council's spending year to year, but a measure derived after the use of balances.
	On the face of it, South Cambridgeshire's budget requirement went up from just over 9 million to nearly 14 million, but in reality the council proposed an 850,000 budget increase from 13.75 million, or a 6.2 per cent. increase. However, the order means that the Minister is effectively demanding that South Cambridgeshire's budget last year of 13.75 million should be reduced to 12 million this year. I cannot in my wildest imagination understand how a capping regime that is designed to reduce excessive spending can demand that a council reduces its expenditure year on year by 13 per cent.from 13.75 million to 12 million. That is an utterly perverse effect.
	The Minister knows that he has the discretion to change these things because he has already changed the proposal once. All my colleagues who are demanding that their councils should be permitted to make larger increases than 5.5 per cent. from their low council tax bases should take heart from the fact that the Minister has accepted that council tax in South Cambridgeshire should go up by a third, because that was the effect of the way in which the order was amended after the initial determination. I cannot take much comfort from that because although many arguments are made about the trivial nature of the Government's proposals for other authorities' budgets, the situation in South Cambridgeshire is not trivial. The order will lead to the existing service base being greatly reduced, so we are not talking about the ability to increase and improve services there, although we wish to do so.
	The Minister knows what those reductions will be. As my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York said, the Government might not admit to making assumptions about the consequences of the order, but they know those consequences. Although I shall not go through the   whole list, they know that arts development grants will disappear in South Cambridgeshire, as will sports   development grants. Community development expenditure will have to be curtailed. Such development is occurring in places such as Cambourne, which is a new settlement in my constituency, to try to accommodate the tens of thousands of new homes that South Cambridgeshire must have because the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has demanded it of us. Emergency planning will stop. Travellers' caravan sites could not be refurbished and improved, or provided. Building control regulations will have to be curbed, as will community safety and crime and disorder partnership activities. A whole string of activities, including statutory functions, will be affected.
	It is thus simply not true, as the Government claimed in the statement on 7 July, that the order is compatible with authorities being able to continue to maintain service levels and to deliver their statutory functions. If that were the case, it could be true in South Cambridgeshire only if there was a further substantial reduction in balances this year, meaning that there would be no room whatsoever for further council tax amelioration through transfers from balances next year. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks said, the Minister is proposing to throw the medium-term financial strategy of South Cambridgeshire district council out of the window, which is in complete contravention of the interests of my constituents and the residents of the council.
	It is absurd for the Minister to say that the Government are increasing support to local government across the board. We are debating the circumstances of individual authorities such as mine, which is a relatively low-spending authorityit is in the lowest quartile of expenditure. My authority sets a below-average council tax and that set by some other authorities is very low. However, the total external support for South Cambridgeshire has gone down by a third in the past decade. The revenue support grant for South Cambridgeshire is only 18 a head12 a head less than even the grant for Huntingdonshire, which is a low-spending authority that receives little external support.
	The Minister regards the proposed increase to South Cambridgeshire's budget as excessive, but it represents only an 850,000 increase in expenditure. The largest component of the increase is more than 500,000 to deal with the consequences of enforcement and legal action relating to Travellers in South Cambridgeshire. I will not dwell on this matter because we have debated it separately. My hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) and I have told the Minister's colleagues how necessary it is that South Cambridgeshire and other authorities have powers to ensure that planning laws relating to Travellers are upheld and that they receive the support of Government enforcement. However, that is simply not happening, which has the consequence of creating enormous additional cost. That was why two thirds of the proposed budget increase was precisely to meet enforcement costs relating to Travellers.
	Despite failing to support South Cambridgeshire in that respect, however, and having demanded that tens of thousands of additional homes are built in South Cambridgeshire, having failed to use the revenue support grant to provide any additional significant support to the authority, and having demanded that it cuts its budget, the Minister comes to the House with the argument that he is protecting the council tax payers of South Cambridgeshire. However, that argument has no support from me or the residents of South Cambridgeshire. He is not protecting council tax payers, but proposing a complete absurdity. He knows that the proposal is completely arbitrary. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) was absolutely right to argue that we have ended up with crude, universal and arbitrary capping. Whatever the reserve powers on capping were intended to address, it was not these circumstances.
	The Minister would be wise to bear it in mind that he had to amend his initial proposal because it was clearly arbitrary and unreasonable, which was how I described it to him in my correspondence. However, he continues to propose something that is arbitrary and unreasonable. At the very least he should just say that South Cambridgeshire should not be required to reduce its budget below last year's figure of 13.75 million. That budget was not excessive then. It is not unreasonable to request that the council does not increase its budget year on year, but the Minister's demand that the budget should go down by 13 per cent. is arbitrary, unreasonable and unacceptable.

Robert Walter: I shall put what I want to say in a little context. If my local authority, North Dorset district council, had been permitted to make its proposed council tax increase, it would have moved from being the local authority with the seventh lowest council tax in Britain to that with the 12th lowest.
	Before the hon. Member for Brent, East (Sarah Teather) leaves the Chamber, let me say that I am grateful to her for the fact that her robust and measured speech contrasted with the response of her predecessor, the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), to the original announcement on 23 March, which the hon. Gentleman used as an opportunity to take pot shots at Conservative local authorities' spending. He singled out my local authority, North DorsetI think that he was briefed by the future Mrs. Davey, who unsuccessfully tried to unseat me for the second time on 5 May. I am delighted that the leader of the Liberal Democrat group on North Dorset district council, who also sits on Dorset county council, has tabled a motion, which Dorset county council will debate tomorrow, in his name and those of his Liberal Democrat colleagues:
	This Council condemns the capping of eight low-spending rural District Councils, all of which have existing levels of Council Tax at below the national average . . . In particular this Council condemns the capping of North Dorset District Council
	which is, of course, Conservative controlled
	whose tax level is currently 98 p.a (Band D), the twelfth lowest in the country, and notes that the budget set by the Council currently provides the minimum revenue funding required to achieve the Government's own statutory targets, particularly in the areas of Waste Management and E-Government, and notes that the Government itself provides no revenue to meet these targets.
	On 23 March, the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) invited hon. Members and local authorities to make representations to him, and all local authorities did so. If that was micro-management by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, and if the ODPM thinks it knows how local authorities should manage their budgets, then the encounter was disappointingI note that the hon. Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Jim Fitzpatrick), who met us on that day, is now a Front Bencher.
	At that meeting, we did not discuss what the Government feel North Dorset district council should do, which was unusual. When I asked the Leader of the House about that approach at business questions, he also found it most unusual:
	I am confident that detailed information will have been made available to the local authorities on the list, and there will be a number of opportunities for the hon. Gentleman to raise his concerns about overspending by particular local authorities . . . I am sure that when the hon. Gentleman has meetings with Ministers on this question, they are willing to engage in discussions with him, but he should bear in mind the fact that there is a difference between having a discussion whose conclusions he agrees with and simply having a discussion. I am confident that he will have had a discussion with Ministers, although he may not have liked what they said to him.[Official Report, 7 July 2005; Vol. 436, c. 458.]
	I did not like what Ministers said, because they did not say anything. We made our presentation, for which we were politely thanked, but no discussion took place.
	If the Government really believe that they know how North Dorset district council should raise and spend money, they should explain where it is going wrong. We must ask why a small local authority such as North Dorset has attracted special consideration. As I have said, band D council tax is 98, and although the percentage increase in council tax was large, it amounted to 36p a week. Even after the rise, the council tax was the 12th lowest in the country and the lowest in Dorset. As I have said, in neighbouring Weymouth and Portland, which is Labour controlled, band D council tax is 232.
	For about 10 years, council tax has been kept low by the use of interest earned from capital, which was raised mainly from the sale of council houses. The Government want councils to use that capital to benefit their areas. As the capital programme is implemented, investment interest will fall because the investments themselves will fall. Furthermore, we live in a low interest rate environment. In essence, council tax has been subsidised for about 10 years, but it will be impossible to subsidise it in four or five years' time. North Dorset district council has publicised that point at roadshows, in newspapers and during consultations, and council tax payers have indicated that they would support rises in tax in order to maintain or improve council services. The council intends to raise tax levels smoothly over five years to reach a budget that no longer relies on interest from reserve capital.
	North Dorset is not an overspending councilit spends less than its formula spending share. It is not profligateits spending is average among its Audit Commission family of councils. It has given proper protection to taxpayers, who have benefited from a lower council tax because the council has been supported by interest earned from reserves for the past 10 years. It plans to increase tax gradually over five years to offset the reductions in its reserves, and it is also making substantial efficiency savings, which is reasonable and responsible. It is investing its capital in affordable housing, which is one of the greatest needs in the area. Its proposed tax rate would still be the 12th lowest in the country. At the end of its five-year plan, taxpayers would benefit from a rate close to the national average.
	The Government's action will return about 12p a week to the taxpayer. The cost of rebilling is equivalent to nearly 6 on the council tax bill, which is not value for money, and the Government would give a fail judgment to any council that proposed such action. North Dorset is a low-tax council. Since the Government published their guidance last year, it has been penalised for having a low council tax over the past 10 years. Councils that start from a higher tax base have increased council tax by more in real terms than North Dorset district council.
	Where is the natural justice in capping North Dorset district council? The Government's accusation of overspending is meaningless. If the council keeps to a 5 per cent. rise over the next five years, it will have to reduce its size by 25 per cent., which strikes at its very viability. It has slightly more than 200 staff to deliver more than 30 major services, the same number of services as is provided by much larger councils. It must be allowed to manage its own affairs, and my constituents, who pay the council tax, support it. It is being capped for increasing tax by the cost of one cigarette a week. How much public money has been spent on taking that action?

DEFERRED DIVISION

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I now have to announce the result of a Division deferred from a previous day.
	On the motion Access to Justice, the Ayes were 224 and the Noes 184, so the motion was agreed to.
	[The Division List is published at the end of today's debates.]

Council Tax

Question again proposed.

Alistair Burt: It has been a pleasure to participate in this stupendous debate. The Minister for Local Government made his case, not like Captain Ahab, but like Horatio holding the bridge with a bent rapier. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) made a consistent case on rate capping, and, although I do not necessarily agree with him, it would help him and us if he were to join us in the Lobby tonight. The hon. Member for Brent, East (Sarah Teather) made such a good speech that my wife paged me to say how impressed she was, although my wife agrees with me that she should send a copy of it to Councillor Neil Cliff, the Liberal Democrat leader on Mid Bedfordshire district council.
	Since then, a succession of living legends have systematically taken apart the Minister's case. There is no case.
	This has been a heady few weeks for the Government. First, confronting the dangers of global injustice, the Prime Minister took on the G8. Then, to put the European Union, which was going dangerously off-track, back on the rails, he took on the EU at the summit. Then, to prevent the danger of the Olympic games going to Paris, he took on the collective might of the International Olympic Committee, stepping in at the last moment. Yes, in the past few weeks, the Government have confronted the real dangers in modern life.
	Now we come to the apex: to confront the dangers posed to democracy and economic stability by Mid-Beds district council, the Government are proposing the order before us. I feel that, in the manner of a Soviet show trial, I shall have to stand here and admit the crimes of Mid-Beds district council, for which it has been punished by the Minister and the Government. I do so, of course, in shame and degradation.
	Led by Councillor Mrs. Tricia Turner, 53 local councillors attend to their work, working locally and diligently for local people. That is their first crime. Last year, the council had the audacity to offer the 10th lowest tax charged by any district council in England. Even after this year's increase, its local council tax would be the 16th lowest. It has alsothis is a real horror to confess to the Housereturned general fund balances to the council tax payer over the past two years. It has, I am ashamed to admit, identified 2.4 million in savings over the last three years, and a further 800,000 for next year, while making local decisions about the services required to respond to the needs of local citizens. I have to tell the Minister that there is a fifth column operating in his regional office, because the regional office of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister also thinks that Mid-Beds is a good council.
	Now we come to the crime passionel. In setting a budget for this year, Mid-Beds recognised that returning reserves to its citizens and trying to provide services worth 120 for 102 last year necessitated a rise this year, so as to head towards a balanced budget. The crime that I have to report to the House is that Mid-Beds had to propose a 1 per month increase in local tax.
	I understand how this must appear to officials and to the Treasury. Memos must have been winging their way across Whitehall stamped with the Churchillian mark, Action this day, to prevent such a crime from being committed. Of course, I dissemble to a degree, because I have given only the actual figure. If I give the percentage, it is, of course, as the Minister said, about 13 per cent.but in real life, that means about 1 a month.
	What is it that really requires the Government to intervene? Is it Mid-Beds' desire to run local services locally and efficiently, and to take the inflation-busting decision to charge an extra 1 a week? And what is the impact? At first glance, the Government will require the council to reduce its budget by 341,000 to about 11,193,000, which would reduce band D council tax from the original 102 to 94.57a saving to the taxpayer of 7.61 per annum, or 15p a week. Worked out on an individual basis for all the residents in Mid-Beds, it means 3.7p a week being saved.
	However, the real effect will be greater. Councillor Max McMurdo sent me an e-mail yesterday. Max is an independent councillor representing Sandy. Indeed, he is a living legend in Sandy. If Max decided to stand for Parliament, I would have serious difficulties; he is a great man. His e-mail says:
	Having been a councillor for six years, I have voted for the 'Lean and Mean' approach that we have adopted, trickling reserves into the budget and looking for corporate savings wherever possible, to keep our Council Tax as low as possible. Last year we delivered our full range of services costing 120 at a Band D tax charge of only 102. We have now almost reduced our reserves to the prudent minimum and have been planning the future, to get back to a balanced budget, without the use of subsidy from reserves, by 2007. That is the very essence of prudent financial planning and is surely at the heart of good local government.
	It does mean, of course, that as we remove the subsidy each year the percentage increase is above inflation. Indeed it is inflation plus the amount of the withdrawn subsidy and this year our proposed increase was to be 13.3%, but this would still have left us with the 16th lowest District Council tax charge in England.
	To impose a cap, any cap, in percentage terms is a nonsense. Surely one must look at the actual tax charge to be levied. A percentage restriction can only be an attack on those Councils that have a low starting point, which surely points to the authority having a tight fiscal policy. If the explanation(s) for an increase above the Central Government target are sound, then, I suggest, good central government should gracefully accept them and approve the local decision.
	Surely the Government's goal is to control profligate councils?? Or am I being politically naive?
	Well, Max, I think that, sadly, you probably arebecause your arguments are absolutely right and fundamentally sound, and if the Government had the good grace they would listen, and do something about them.
	The leader of the council and the chief executive have written a memo reminding local ratepayers that
	More and more responsibilities have been placed on Mid-Beds by the Government, with insufficient funding to support them. The Government grant to us this year did not even meet our inflation costs of over 1 million. This enforced capping will lead to very considerable cuts.

Greg Clark: Is my hon. Friend aware that the inspection and audit fees faced by local councils such as his have doubled since 1998? Is it not cruelly ironic that those fees imposed on councils are not subject to the capping about which he rightly complains?

Alistair Burt: My hon. Friend makes a very fair point. I have described in the House in the past the ludicrous situation whereby the Government impose all sorts of different charges on local ratepayers, as well as councils, yet no blame or control seems to be attached to them. For example, multiple sclerosis therapy centres face an increase of 300 per cent. in the charges for inspection until 2008, imposed by the Government, who tell the Healthcare Commission that such inspections have to be fully funded by the centres. So there is no capping for the 300 per cent. increase for people who collect voluntarily for multiple sclerosis sufferers, whereas when there is an increase of 3.7p a week for individual residents of Mid-Beds, the Government step in to cap. I do not think that my hon. Friend or I, or Patricia Turner or Max McMurdo, can explain that.
	This is not what capping was designed to doand here we come to the essence of the argument about capping. As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have been around for a long timewhich is the basis of my leadership bid. I was there in the 1980s when capping was first introduced; I was Parliamentary Private Secretary to Ken Baker in the Department of the Environment. We faced challenges from the Greater London council led by Ken Livingstone and Liverpool city council with Derek Hatton, when there was a clear aim on the part of local government to use its power and strength to challenge the elected Government of the day. Derek Hatton firmly believed that if the Government were induced to send in commissioners, the people of Liverpool would go out on the streets and rise up. That was part of the plan.
	I knew both Ken Livingstone and Liverpool city council. Councillor Mrs. Turner is no Ken Livingstoneand Mid-Beds district council is no Liverpool city council of the 1980s.
	The cap is misused, out of proportion and demeaning to both central and local government. There is still time for the Minister to exercise his evident good sense, as well as good humour, and rip up his brief, turn to his officials and say, I can't do this; I won't do this. Local democracy and justice must override what the Government are telling me to do.

Philip Hammond: I have had three years as an Opposition spokesman on local government affairs, giving me plenty of opportunity to look at issues in their broader context alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles). Today, I can indulge myself in looking at this motion simply from the point of view of Runnymede borough council, my local council.
	This capping exercise defies common sense and smacks of political opportunism. Runnymede borough council is being capped in 200506 for imposing exactly the same percentage council tax increase as it imposed in 200405. Nobody looking objectively at how it runs its affairs could conclude other than that it is a well run, prudent council that sensibly responds to the Government's decisions about changes in grant distribution.
	The truth is that, having set out policies for changing the distribution of local authority grants, the Government are now recoiling from the consequences of those policies in action. I shall set out some of the background to Runnymede's situation. Runnymede is historically a low-taxing authority. It is the lowest-taxing authority in Surrey and the eighth lowest in the country. At 117 this year, its band D council tax is 31 per cent. below the average for district councils.
	This year's increase, which the Government found so offensive, amounted to 34p a week. Overall, including the county and police precepts, Runnymede council tax payers faced a total increase of 4.93 per cent. in their council tax bills. Like colleagues, I have had virtually no complaintsa handfulfrom taxpayers about the increases. The Minister has received letters from the leaders of the Labour group and the Independent group on the council urging him not to cap Runnymede. I am pleased to say that there is no Liberal Democrat group.
	Runnymede council is an excellent authority, rated excellent in its financial management. It was credited with having
	credible strategies to meet future challenges.
	Its strategy now lies in tatters.
	Runnymede is also a popular council: in 2001 and in 2004, it was in the top 10 of all councils in England in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's residents general satisfaction survey. Part of the reason for that level of satisfaction is the non-statutory services that the council operatesday centres for the elderly, the yellow school bus transport scheme that contributes to a reduction in congestion, the community safety closed circuit television scheme, and an extensive programme of voluntary sector grants. Those are precisely the non-statutory services that will face the brunt of the cuts that the Minister is, in effect, imposing.
	In 2002, the then Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford), announced a change in the way the grant system would operate. I remember going with other Members to a seminar that he held in Portcullis House, and he was quite open about what he was doing. He was redistributing local authority grant as delivered to councils, and he fully expected that some councils would have to raise their council tax in consequence. That accelerated an existing trend for Runnymede that had seen its formula grant drop 29 per cent. in real terms between 199596 and 200506. In per capita terms, Runnymede has had only a 0.4 per cent. money increase in formula grant since 199899. The Minister, of course, prefers to talk about individual years or the last three years, but what Runnymede and other prudent and sensible councils are doing is responding to a long-term trend of change in the way in which grant is distributed. After adjustment for changes in the benefit system, the real terms reduction from the 199596 figure in Runnymede's grant this year represents 2.18 million, and that is on a budget base of 8.5 million.
	The council faces considerable cost pressures, as all councils do. As a council in transition to lower grant, it does not receive any effective grant recognition for the costs imposed by new legislation, particularly the cost of responding to waste recycling and environmental initiatives.
	Despite reservations about what the Government were doing to the grant system, Runnymede reacted as a prudent, well managed council would. It responded rationally, as the Government intended, and set out a clear plan to increase, over five years, its council tax levels to something closer to the average. Ouroverwhelmingly Conservativecouncillors were willing to knuckle down and put into practice the agenda that the Government had dictated to councils that had had grant distributed from them: it increased the council tax. The problem that Runnymede now has is that the Government lost their nerve when they saw the inevitable results of their own policy.
	Runnymede's strategy was to reduce revenue budgets by around 2 million over a period, to reduce its working balances to the minimum prudent level during the transitional phase, and to increase taxes to a level that would still be well below the district council average. Those were sensible, rational, medium-term responses to the changed environment in which it found itself. The ODPM was aware of that medium-term strategy, and Runnymede council believed that it had accepted it. Runnymede was not capped last year because the Government recognised explicitlywe have already heard the words of the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwichthe position in which low-taxing authorities found themselves and the absurdity of applying a percentage limit to a very low-taxing authority. Unfortunately, the Government have applied no such absolute criterion this year, so low-taxing authorities are caught by the same percentage criteria that would be applied to higher-taxing authorities.
	What is the point of extolling the virtues of medium-term financial planning by local authorities if the Government are going to move radically the goalposts from year to year so that a council with a medium-term strategy finds that it meets the ODPM's approval one year but falls outside the criteria that it has set down the following year? The Government are in an absurd position. They set out a policy of shifting grant away from certain types of local authorities in certain areas, which logically requires higher taxes. Now, they will not allow councils to increase their taxes to fill the void left by the shifting of grants, but there is no sign of their being prepared to change the grant formula back to return to councils such as Runnymede any of the grant support that they have lost.
	The Minister and his colleagues know that major service cuts are inevitable, yet they refuse point blank to explain how a local authority in Runnymede's position should respond to the situation in which it finds itself. This is bad government imposed for cynical pre-election political reasons. As a result, for a saving of just 7.23 a year14p a week after rebilling costspeople in Runnymede face service cuts totalling about 800,000 over the next couple of years. That will fall on the elderly who use day centres, communities who rely on CCTV security provision, and voluntary organisations that depend on the council's grant support programme. I am pleased to say that tomorrow Runnymede's Conservative councillors will each make a donation equivalent to their own personal savings as a result of the capping exercise to start a fund to make up the loss of grant for those local voluntary organisations. We hope that that will establish a local trend.
	This is a bad day for local government and for central Government, but I assure the Minister that it will also turn out to be a bad day politically for the Labour party, because nobody in Runnymede supports these cuts and the Government will reap the cost of what they have sown today.

Jonathan Djanogly: I concur with much of what my right hon. and hon. Friends have said this afternoon.
	The Government's decision to cap the council tax of Huntingdonshire district council is nothing less than a travesty of what local government should be about. This debate has illustrated the senseless inability of this Labour Government to differentiate effective and inefficient or high-spending and low-spending councils, or even to understand the basic motivators of effective local government.
	Let me make it clear at the outset that no one says that Huntingdonshire district council is anything but well run. Indeed, it is one of the few councils in the east of England that the Government rate as excellent. It represents the sort of premier league council that the Government said only recently should be awarded greater freedomswords that now resemble some hollow joke. Rather than awarding more freedom, the Government are taking a sledgehammer to the council's carefully set plans and thereby undermining the concept of local democracy.
	Huntingdonshire should be congratulated rather than capped. It has delivered the Government's agenda for recycling targets, e-government, providing better local transport and regeneration. It has excelled in all those. Even with the increase in tax, the band D rate of 106.54 is the 19th lowest of the 238 districtsin the bottom 8 per cent. in the country.
	Earlier, the Minister said that the order was intended to prevent unreasonable increases. What is unreasonable? That has still not been explained to me today. It is bizarre to penalise the council simply because it has a higher percentage increase on a low historical base, when high-taxing, inefficient councils, which have increased council tax by more than Huntingdonshire district council, are ignored.
	Huntingdonshire's budget is set to increase by only 3.2 per cent. next year. That is well within the Government's target. However, because it has reduced the subsidy from its reserves this year when compared with last year, the increase in budget requirement becomes a figure that is caught by the capping regime. Capping therefore effectively forces the council to maintain a high council tax subsidy. That is simply not sustainable in practice and not honest to my constituents. The Government are forcing my local council to indulge in Mickey Mouse accounting.
	I shall explain my deeper fears for Huntingdonshire, its local government and the district's future development in one of the fastest growing populations and business environments in the country. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Mr. Vara), who cannot be here this afternoon, shares not only the district with me but my concerns that the Government are forcing us to build thousands more houses while not only withholding grant but capping a modest council tax increase. So much for joined-up thinking in government.
	Huntingdonshire has a low council tax, which reflects the council's careful and efficient management of resources and the significant amounts that are earned by investing its reserves following the transfer of its housing stock in 2000. The council is slowly spending those reserves on service improvements and they will reduce to a minimum in approximately 2011. As the council spends its reserves, its interest income reduces. Despite efficiency savings, which have happened, most of the balance will need to be made up by an increase in the council tax.
	With that in mind, the council sensibly decided to make the increase gradual12 a yearstarting in 200405 and continuing for five years. There was none of the stick-your-finger-in-the-air stuff on a yearly basis that happens with poor or deceitful councils. Huntingdonshire district council looked five years ahead and honestly told its residents what it needed to do to continue to provide a decent local service.
	That was a good example of efficient budgeting by officers and effective political leadership by the majority party councillors. They consulted widely and the majority party took the plan to the electorate in the all-up elections and received a thumping majorityand therefore an endorsement for their spending policies. Last year, the council was not capped, despite a similar increase in tax.
	The Minister is effectively telling me that he does not give two hoots for what my local council has done   or planned, for what the local residentsmy constituentsthink or even for what the Government thought last year. He is sticking to a bizarre formula and ignoring reason. He shows contempt for local democracy.
	What is the effect of all that on Huntingdonshire? It means an average decrease of 6.82 a yearabout 13p a weekfor band D ratepayers. The cost of rebilling them is 60,000 of wasted taxpayers' money. I ask the Minister whether at least the rebilling can be postponed until next year to save that huge waste of money on administration costs. However, my main concern is that, unless the Government accept the poverty of their own argument, this problem will simply arise again in the future.
	In Huntingdonshire, this measure will ultimately result in service cuts of up to 5.6 million a year by 201112, which represents 22 per cent. of the council's planned net spending and a similar proportion of its staffing budget. And all this is happening at a time when the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is still withholding 750,000 a year of grant, which, by its own calculations, the council is due. It seems ridiculous to cap its council tax on top of that.
	I have expressed my concerns today, and I sincerely believe that the Government have got this very badly wrong. Capping is a blunt and wholly inappropriate measure for Huntingdonshire. I hope that the Minister will withdraw the order, but of course it is likely to be passed. In which case, I ask the Government to review their position, to ensure that this unfair and irrational situation is not repeated next year.

David Howarth: After this debate, the Government should go away and ask themselves what the purpose of capping is. We heard very little from the Minister about the point of this exercise. The hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) said that the original point of capping was to ensure that local government could not challenge national economic policy. However, we are dealing here with 4 million out of a total local government expenditure of 80 billion, and national Government spending of five or six times that. The amounts that we are talking about are trivial.
	The hon. Gentleman was quite amusing about how trivial and pathetic this situation was, but it is more serious than that. Here we are in a place that used to legislate for half the world. Now it is reduced to telling Aylesbury Vale council what it can do with 4p per resident per week. How the mighty have fallen! The only reason that the Minister gave for capping these councils was that it was to protect council tax payers, but again we are talking about tiny amounts. Even in South Cambridgeshirewhere the sum involved amounts to almost half the figure that we are talking about todaythe cap will benefit local council tax payers by less than 1 a week. How an expensive re-billing exercise will protect local council tax payers is entirely beyond me.
	As many hon. Members have said, this is really about simple contempt for local democracy. If council tax payers in the areas concerned believe that these increases are beyond the paleor excessive, in the words of the Ministerthey will take the obvious route and vote out the councillors who brought in those levels of council tax. Given the amounts that we are talking about, it seems unlikely that that would happen, but that is their prerogative. The Minister said that members of the public had made their views known. I want to know how many of those members of the public there were, and how many of them voted in the most recent local government elections. One of the effects of capping seems to be to disempower local government, to give local voters less reason to vote, and to allow national Government to take over even the most trivial local decisions.
	I expected the Minister to say that one of the points of capping was to advance national policy in some way. However, we look in vain to discover which aspects of national policy would be advanced by this exercise. As hon. Members have said, three of the councils involved have been rated excellent in their comprehensive performance assessment rating. So how does capping those councils further the Government's policy to improve the local delivery of services?
	The measure is even undermining important national policies. In South Cambridgeshire, for example, an important growth area, cuts will be made in planning, community policing and in other new, important Government initiatives. Why is that? One reason, which the Government do not seem to understand, is that if a council leader is faced with having to reduce his budget, the one thing he cannot do is cut existing programmes, as that involves making people redundant and adds to the cost because savings cannot come from redundancies. He must therefore remove from the budget all the new programmes, a vast number of which have come from national initiatives. The Government are therefore undermining their own policies by capping such councils.

Andrew Lansley: A further unhappy consequence is that one is forced by this logic also to restrict grants to voluntary sector bodies and partnership organisations. Sometimes, therefore, the consequentials lie outside the budget of the local authority, but the damage in the community is if anything enhanced.

David Howarth: That is absolutely right, and many councils will be forced, because of the logic of the situation and the short time frame, to reduce expenditure by cutting grants to voluntary bodies. Certainly, that is the unfortunate position in South Cambridgeshire.
	The other aspect of national policy to which one might have expected a reference was the overall level of taxation. As the Minister said, however, the Government have succeeded in keeping the council tax rise across the country down to 4.1 per cent. As that goal seems to have been achieved, I cannot see the point of this exercise. He says that all local authorities have been in receipt of grant increases higher than RPII expected him to make that point. RPI is no measure of local government costs, however, especially for district councils, which have small budgets subject to wide variation. Most of their budgets are staff costs, and councils must compete with the private sector for professional staff. One cannot expect them to hold down salaries in a competitive situation in which if they did so they would lose their planners, lawyers and accountants.
	Another aspect of the problem that Ministers do not seem to have taken into accountwhich brings me back to the point raised by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley)is that district councils often have to work together to provide services. South Cambridgeshire district council, for example, works with Cambridge city council in relation to many of the voluntary bodies that it funds. One of the effects of the cap on South Cambridgeshire is to hit residents of neighbouring authoritiesthe citizens advice bureau in Cambridge will find itself 66,000 short, employment development grants will be 47,000 short, and there will be cuts in grants to homelessness organisations, the arts and community groups. All those groups are jointly funded by South Cambridgeshire district council and Cambridge city council. The pain that the Minister seems to intend for one council will therefore fall on the residents of a large number of councils.
	I must admit that for several years I had the dubious pleasure of being leader of Cambridge city council, South Cambridgeshire's neighbour. In many ways, South Cambridgeshire was an infuriating neighbour. It followed a financial strategy that I would never have followed. I thought that it could have used its reserves in a more constructive way. But that was the way it chose to use its reserves, and it should be judged at the ballot box, not by the Minister.
	If national policy goals are not the reason for the Government's policy, what is? There might be one last reason: pour encourager les autresto pick on a few small councils, and to bully them as a warning to others. The sheer arbitrariness of what is happening is an advantage from that point of view. When the Minister was trying to explain why the criteria had changed, and why councils that are capped this year would not have been capped last year, or are having their budgets reduced from last year's levels, he referred to councils being allowed to second-guess. In other words, they would know what the rules were, and the Minister cannot allow councils to know what the rules are. That is extraordinary, and, as the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) pointed out, it is an abuse of power. It is a refusal to treat local authorities as rational beings, rather than as objects of manipulation. There is no chance of a stable constitutional settlement between central and local government on the basis of such manipulation. It is the ultimate in centralisation.
	The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister seems to be treating councils as unruly circus animals that must be induced to perform tricks. It is disgusting to watch, and should not be the basis of a mature democracy. The House should reject this contemptible order, and look to a democratic system of local government and a fair system of local government finance to restore the proper balance between local and national Government.

Philip Hollobone: About 20 per cent. of my constituents live in the Daventry district council area, and they are extremely concerned about the order. I also speak on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), who unfortunately cannot be with us but who has written to the Minister expressing his concern, and has met him recently.
	Within the Daventry district part of the Kettering constituency lies the battlefield of Naseby, where in 1645 the forces of Parliament overcame an over-mighty Executive. I invite the Minister to travel up to Naseby for a re-enactment of the battle. I am sure that members of the district council would be willing to take him on with me, and teach the Executive a lesson 460 years later.
	The order is particularly absurd in the case of Daventry district council. The Government wish to limit the council's budget to 7.8 million, and to reduce the band D requirement from 109.62 to 102.41, which would save 200,000. That is the equivalent of 14p a week, or 7.20 a year. For 14p I could not even buy half a copy of the Daventry Express, the local weekly, or half a copy of the daily Chronicle and Echo, which local residents read.
	As other speakers have said, Daventry district council would not have been caught out under past capping regimes. It spends 412,000 less than the formula spending share guidelines, and is well into the bottom half of the league table of total council tax bills. One of the effects of the order is to disrupt the long-term financial planning that the Government require of local authorities. They require authorities' medium-term financial strategies with projections of at least four years.
	The Daventry Express quotes council leader Chris Millar, one of the most exceptional council leaders in the country:
	It's scandalous that the Government is able to undermine our ability to develop and implement robust services and long-term financial planning . . . the Government is effectively dictating future local service cuts which is an affront to local democracy.
	In short, the Government want to micro-manage some of the very best local authorities in the country, which means that there will indeed be a severe impact on local services. Council leader Chris Millar also said:
	There will be a long-term negative impact on services.
	That will be a direct result of the Government's action.
	As was pointed out earlier, there has been no regulatory impact assessment, and the Government have admitted that they cannot make assumptions about which local services and activities may be affected. So they are prepared to cap authorities' revenue budgets, but they shrug their shoulders when it comes to the damaging effect on the services provided to local people. Although this is obviously a party political attack on Conservative-controlled local authorities, so far as Daventry district council is concerned, there has been cross-party condemnation of the Government's actions.
	Two issues perhaps affect Daventry rather more than some other authorities mentioned, the first being negative housing subsidy and the associated transitional recovery scheme, which the Government have approved. I submitted a written parliamentary question to the Minister, to which he was good enough to respond, saying that the order does not affect the authority's entitlement to benefit from the transitional measures under this scheme. That is certainly not the local authority's understanding, and I should welcome the Minister's confirming whether the negative housing subsidy and the transitional recovery arrangements have indeed been fully taken into account in applying this order.
	Daventry district council wanted to increase its council tax by 13.6 per cent., which is an increase in cash terms of 13.12 a year. Some 10 of that10.4 per cent.is in accordance with the transitional recovery arrangements that apply to the negative housing subsidy. These arrangements have been approved by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, and yet, because the authority has now been capped, it will no longer be able to recover the amounts it was previously promised. The council says that, to judge by the full implications of this order, by 200910 it could well have a cumulative deficit of 1.9 million, which will place it in an extremely perilous position. Councillor Christopher Millar says:
	The time has come to say enough is enough. If the Government are serious about devolving powers and responsibilities to local communities as part of their
	supposed
	localism agenda, then they need to stop playing 'silly politics' such as happened in this instance,
	by which he means this order. Our spending so much time debating these ridiculous orders and micro-managing well-run local authorities does not enhance the image of the Government or of local government.
	The most absurd aspect of this order is the Government's forcing Daventry district council to re-bill local residents. The Government want to save 198,000, but the cost of rebilling will be 100,000, so half the benefit will be lost. It might well go to the Post Office through the extra postage spent; however, there will be no benefit to local residents. When the Minister winds up, I hope that he will explain why, if local authorities such as Daventry district council are to be penalised by this order, arrangements cannot be made for the saving in grant to be carried forward to the next year to avoid the cost of rebilling, instead of imposing this additional requirement.

Brian Binley: As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am new to this House. I have been told that the new Minister, who is currently leaning backwards over the Front Bench, is a good guy, that he will be all right and that he can be relied on. [Interruption.] If he will be kind enough to listen, I should like to point out that I am really sorry that his predecessor left him in this mess. It seems that this good guythis all right guyhas little appetite for this measure. However, he will be able to improve and to deal with more important matters as time goes by. Sadly, the members of Daventry district council will be left with the residue of what is for them a quite disastrous measure, which will impact on council services for many years to come. I hope that when the Minister thinks of these matters in the future, he will take that into account.
	Let us see what the Minister's predecessor actually did. On 23 March this year, just 43 days before the general election, the then Minister for Local and Regional Government made a statement to the House on council tax for the year 200506. He outlined the actions that the Government proposed to take in response to the authorities that had set what he described as excessive budgets. The Minister thereafter named nine district councilsseven of which were Conservative controlled, with the Conservatives as the largest party in the remaining twoand gave them 21 days to tell him why they should not be capped. He added that he would
	carefully consider the information . . . along with other representations they make.
	He subsequently said:
	We shall welcome representations as well as information . . . and we shall take that into account when we make our final decision.[Official Report, 23 March 2005; Vol. 432, c. 88486.]
	The then Minister for Local and Regional Government repeated that promise on three further occasions, during a speech that lasted, if we exclude the interjections, just 26 minutes. In other words, he made the promise virtually every five minutes. One might think that that was a pretty meaningful commitment, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Consequently, the question that comes to mind is whether the Government who made that promise have kept that promise.
	Let us consider the evidence for just one councilDaventry district council, which is part of the county council that I happen to be proud to serve. If the promise was not kept for one council, it was simply not kept. Daventry district council responded as requested and made a case rather similar to that made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Hollobone) earlier today.
	First, Daventry's council tax level remained in the lowest 30 per cent. of all districts and boroughs in England, equating to a band D council tax of almost 20 per cent. less than that of nearby Corby, which, as the Minister well knows, is a Labour-controlled council. Secondly, the annual increase for Daventry residents amounted to just 13.12, or 25p a week. How the Minister must be delighted to be in charge of an order that deals with such important matters! Thirdly, the band D council tax level was 15.28 per annum below what the Government assumed that it should be and the total budget was 854,000 below the Government's estimation of what it should have been. Fourthly, the average increase of the aggregate council bill for the residents of Daventry district council area totalled just 4.3 per cent.well within the Government's proclaimed and stated objective of an average increase of less than 5 per cent.
	Many would think that that is an enviable record and I hope that the Minister thinks that it is. The real clincher, however, relates to the Government's own decision to take housing grant subsidy away from the council. Indeed, 10 of the average annual increase of 13.12 was levied to compensate for the Government's decision, leaving just 3.12 per annum, or a 3.2 per cent. increase for all other council expenditures. Again, that is well in line with the Government's requirements and I suggest that most fair-minded people would think that that was a very creditable performance.
	Most fair people would think that the council's specific status as a former negative housing subsidy authority should be well understood by the Government. Most would think that a council that consistently utilised the Government's negative subsidy transitional measures introduced in April 2001, which allowed for a phased and planned increase in council tax income to 200809 to compensate for the stepped loss in negative subsidy funding, would be fully understandable to the Government. They would think that the Government would listen to Daventry and understand its situation. They would expect the Government to act fairly in those circumstances and take Daventry off the capping list. Sadly, the Government did not do that.
	Did the Government keep their promise to consider the information carefully and take all the factors into account? The evidence suggests that they did not. Based on the figures that I have given, Daventry's council tax levy would be welcomed by more than 70 per cent. of the people of this country. Its record as a financially well controlled council is among the best.
	So why did the Government go ahead with their decision to cap once the full facts were made known? Daventry does not present a case for capping on any reasonable criteria. The only motive was the Government's wish to create political scapegoatsand preferably Conservative onesbefore the general election, in an attempt to show that they were tough on council tax increases, and tough on the causes of council tax increases. The Government are going ahead with this order because not to do so would give away their political game, and that would not spin very easily.
	The truth is well documented, not least by the all-party local government association. It has stated that council taxes have risen almost solely because of the Government's actions, and especially those actions related to the continual shortfall in local government funding. That is the true cause of council tax increases, but the Government could not face up to that truth before a general election and had to find others to blame. They picked on local government, and Conservative-controlled local government at that.
	The Government continually say that they want to give local government greater freedoms, but they persist in capping for their own political ends. That is unacceptable. Capping, at best, is a crude Government instrument. However, used in the way the Government have used it, it becomes a weapon of the bully and a device of the political charlatan. That does not make for good governmentin fact, the reverse is true.
	I am proud to be a local county councillor, and I know how hard my colleagues work to provide good services for their citizens. Sadly, this measure demeans both them and their work. It demeans local government by trying to create the impression that it is inefficient and wasteful, and that it does not care about value for money. None of that is true. How does the Minister hope to encourage good local government when he treats some of the best local councils in such a disgraceful way?
	This is a mean and nasty little measure. It demeans local government and this House. It demeans the Government in particular and, I am sad to say, this Minister. That is why I shall vote against it.

Nadine Dorries: My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) and I share the same district council, Mid Bedfordshire, and he has already done an excellent job in fighting our corner. The House can imagine how I feel, as a new Member of Parliament, attempting to follow the experienced and knowledgeable defence that he presented.
	It is important to highlight the excellent value that Conservative-controlled Mid Bedfordshire council provides for its council tax payers. It is efficient, well run, locally responsive and successful. It is a low-spending authority, with band D council tax bills well below the national averagethey are the 16th lowest inthe country, and the lowest in Bedfordshire. Government inspectors who visited the council praised it for its robust financial planning and awarded it three marks out of four for financial prudence, but it appears that this Government choose to ignore their own inspectors when it is a matter of political convenience. Let me explain what I mean by political convenience: there is not one Labour councillor on Mid Bedfordshire district council. That does not mean that the council has done anything other than attempt at all times to work with the Government and all their many impositions and directives, despite the fact that they have unnecessarily burdened the council both financially and in terms of morale.
	The council, its political leadership and officers have always been committed to delivering genuine efficiency savings. For example, over the past three years, as my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire has said, the council has made savings worth approximately 2.4 million, ahead of the saving requirements expected by Gershon. The council has also identified further savings of 809,000 to be achieved in 2005, with additional targets included for future years. It is always sensitive to Government concerns. Only this year, it has used almost 500,000 of balances to cushion the increase in council tax.
	Despite all that hard work and officially endorsed excellent management, Mid Bedfordshire council finds itself being treated like a reckless and irresponsible local authority. People might think that professional, well run Mid Bedfordshire council, commended by Government inspectors for its financial management, was the equivalent of the Labour-run Liverpool city council in the 1980s. The council is and always has been committed to securing value for money for local taxpayers and is actively delivering high-value and well-received services.
	It is not just in prudent financial management that Mid Bedfordshire has proven its worth. There are many other areas where it is improving the quality of life for local people. It has taken environmental issues head on. For example, consistent with Government targets, its waste collection service has increased recycling from just 6 to 32 per cent. in just 18 months. How efficient is that? It has thereby reduced the amount of residual waste ending up as landfill. It is indeed an efficient council.
	This is a practical statement of an efficient council, working in partnership with local residents to improve the environment and delivering on central Government targets. The council has worked hand in hand with the Government and has bent over backwards to satisfy the Government's whims and wishes in every way possible. As the Minister is aware, Mid Bedfordshire is recognised by the Government office for the east of England as a leading council. It has secured regional centre of excellence funding.
	To cap a council that is recognised as a good one, that has set its council tax rate for band D at 102, that is in the bottom 10 per cent. of all taxing councils, that has the 16th lowest rate in the country and the lowest in the county, and whose real-terms increases equate to an increase of 1 a month or 23p a week per resident represents Government interference gone mad. It is an affront to democracy. It is demoralising and distressing to those who have been elected by the people to run the council and those who work for it. Why? Because of the capping injustice, the council must spend 85,000 to refund each resident just 14p a week. For that reason, I consider the Government's decision to cap Mid Bedfordshire district council wholly disproportionate, perverse and draconian. Whatever happened to common sense?
	As a new Member of Parliament, I receive many letters and e-mails from constituents, as well as visits to my surgeries. To date, I have not received a single representation that expresses concern about having to pay an extra 23p a week. In fact, the Minister made a point of saying that he had a file brimful of letters. When we challenged him, he indicated that those letters were on the Bench. Can we see them? Can we see that file brimful of letters that you have had from people, complaining about this issue? Where are they from?
	I should like to give Ministers the benefit of the doubt. I want to help you out. I do not think that you fully appreciate or recognise the context in which Mid Bedfordshire operates. We all know that you are a very busy Governmentin fact, there are far fewer of you today, which is probably why. You have a tendency to become bogged down by statistics. You have probably seen the percentage increase and think that it is high. We can forgive you this, as you obviously do not understand the historically low base from which the increase is being made. How can you on the Government Benches expect council officers to work and give you their all when they are rewarded in such a humiliating way?
	As my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire already stated, Tricia Turner, the council leader is no Derek Hatton. In fact, she and her councillors are the embodiment of professionalism and diligence. They are the foot soldiers of our society and the community. I beg you to reconsider, because your decision is far reaching and damaging.
	Let me explain why the baseline is artificially low and why the Government have made a mistakea big mistake. In recent years, Mid Bedfordshire district council, like other councils, has been reducing its revenue balances by returning money to the taxpayer; by doing that, reserves have been kept to a financially acceptable minimum of 2 million. As soon as balances have been used once, they cannot be used again, the outcome being that council tax has been kept artificially low, with the council's costs not reflected in the amount that they have taxed. The council has been moving its council tax closer to the actual costs of delivering the range of services it provides, with the aim of bringing council tax and spending commitments into line by 2007. That makes Mid Bedfordshire a model council.
	Hon. Members will recall a speech made earlier this month by the Minister of Communities and Local Government to the Local Government Association conference in Harrogate. He said:
	It is not sensible for government to micro-manage.
	Perhaps he can explain what terminology he would use to describe a council being instructed by central Government to incur 85,000 in costs to return 14p a week to residents. That, Minister, is micro-management, and someone in such a senior position should understand that. Sir Sandy Bruce-Lockhart, chairman of the LGA, has described the Government's capping proposals as centralised stupidity. Now that is a man who knows his terminology. I imagine that hon. Members on both sides of the House are inclined to agree with himor perhaps not, given that all the councils being capped are Conservative, despite the fact that Conservative councils in England cost less and deliver better public services, charging 74 a year less on band D properties.
	I should also mention that the eight capped authorities received a mere 12 per cent. increase in funding this year, whereas SedgefieldI wonder who the MP for that constituency isreceived a staggering 68 per cent. increase. As the Minister of Communities and Local Government said to the LGA:
	The centralisation of power . . . is both a symptom and a cause of voter dissatisfaction.
	If Mid Bedfordshire district council did not perform well, the voters would have voted it out. They did not.
	Please pay heed to your own wordslook a little closer at what you are doing

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I had hoped that the hon. Lady would steer out of using the form of address that she has been using. All remarks are made to the Chair, so that when she says you she is referring to the Chair, not to the Minister.

Nadine Dorries: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that the Minister for Local Government will look a little closer at what the Government are doing. This pernicious measure will be regarded by many as politically cheap and unworthya sledgehammer to crack a nut. Ministers should do themselves a favour and rethink now, before it is too late.

Phil Woolas: I thank hon. Gentlemen and hon. Ladies who have taken part in the debate and put the views, as they see them, of their constituents and local authorities in a generally constructive way, despite some of the language used. I am grateful that most of the insultsnot allhave been directed against the collective we rather than the individual I. I shall try to answer some of the detailed points as well as those on general policy.
	A theme running through the debate has been the question of why the Government have chosen to concentrate on percentage increases in council tax rather than on real-terms cash increases. I have a couple of points to make in that context. If we had adopted a different policyone that focused on cash increasesthe debate would have been the opposite of today's. MPs from other parts of the country would have argued the inequity of such a policy as it affected their local councilperhaps a unitary council or a metropolitan borough council with a significant budget of more than a third of a billion pounds and council tax band D rates running at 800 or more a year.
	The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) has made his arguments in correspondence and in meetings with me. To him I say that the Government made two points clear. The first was that council tax increases should not be excessive5 per cent. was the benchmark. The second pointthis crucial point has been missed in today's debate and in some representationswas that the council tax increase was only one criterion to which my predecessor referred. Another requirement was to set a budget that was not excessive, and a limit of 6 per cent. was given. We have been consistent in our application of those criteria.

Eric Pickles: I am sorry to have tell the hon. Gentleman that it is not the case that the 5 per cent. limit was flagged up by the Government. There were some winks and nods to the specialist press, but his predecessor never mentioned 5 per cent.

Phil Woolas: I take the point that the hon. Gentleman is making low single figures was the phrase that was used. However, none of the councils that we are considering today was close to such figures, so his argument is a case of angels dancing on the head of a pin.
	Two criteria were applied. We have concentrated today on council tax increases, but there was also a requirement to establish expenditure budgets that were not excessive. Some budgets were far above the level of inflation, whether measured according to the general retail prices index or equated with the inflation rate claimed by some in local government.

Philip Hammond: rose

Phil Woolas: I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman allowed me to complete my general points, as I have limited time.
	There has been a complaint that councils with a low council tax base are being punished. The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) said that authorities with a low council tax base should be exempt from any capping regime. There is a twofold argument against that. If we take the average as the benchmark and consider councils whose council tax has historically fallen below that level, we would quickly find that a Government of any colour would face an increase in the average. Rises would become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Experience of local government finance in the past 30 to 40 years shows that that is the case.
	Another theme of our debate is the accusation that the Government have failed to listen. I am genuinely sorry if that impression has been given. We have made changes, in particular in response to the representations from South Cambridgeshire and elsewhere. If the House does not accept my assurances, I remind hon. Members that we have a legal obligation, which can be subject to challenges in the courts, to show that we have indeed taken those points into account. It is not the prime purpose of the legislation, but I am also under an obligation to take into account the 98 per cent. of authorities that have not made excessive increases in their expenditure budgets or council taxes. Many of those authorities face similar problems to councils mentioned in today's debate, including the negative housing subsidy to which the hon. Members for Brentwood and Ongar and for Kettering (Mr. Hollobone) referred. It is reasonable that the Secretary of State should take such matters into account.
	Arguably, the very fact that we are talking about small amounts and a small number of local authorities shows that although capping is regrettableour policy of using capping only as a last resort has failed in this respectit has nevertheless secured the lowest level of council tax increases across the country for a number of years. Given the 12.9 per cent. of previous years, we cannot dismiss the 4.1 per cent. achieved this year. As for the accusation that the order is politically motivated, when I was first briefed on the issue and saw the word Sedgemoor the colour drained from my cheeks, as I genuinely believed that it was the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I faced the daunting prospect of meeting not just a former leader of the Conservative partyeveryone would regard the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) as a formidable advocateand his local authority, but my right hon. Friend. That is not sustainable. As further evidence, I remind the House of what happened last year in a similar debate, when Nottingham city councilnot exactly a bastion of the blue rinse Conservative partywas facing a similar problem. I give the assurances requested in that regard.
	The hon. Member for Brent, East (Sarah Teather), speaking on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, said that she would not support any capping regime. Will she then desist from blaming the Government, as she does constantly, when council taxes rise above the level of inflation? When there was no council tax regime three or four years ago, the Liberal Democrats were the first and the strongest to condemn not the local councils that put up council tax above the rate of inflationincluding my own, which was Liberal Democrat-run at the timebut the Government. She cannot have her cake and eat it. It is consistent for her to say that she opposes a capping regime of any kind, but it is not consistent for her opportunistically to use people who she says are suffering disproportionately from council tax increases and to hang that around the neck of the Government.

Sarah Teather: The Minister will recall that I also said that the way to solve the problem was to deal with the balance of funding crisis. I suggested that the first step might be to give control of business rates back to local councils. That way, they can raise a larger proportion of their income from a local base and have much more control.

Phil Woolas: I understand the point that the hon. Lady makes. I guarantee the House that were the Government to pursue that policy and use the Lyons review to decentralise the national non-domestic rate, as she suggests, without applying a form of capping regime or an inflation limit to that non-domestic rate, we would be back here in two or three years and she would be blaming the Government for imposing excessive taxes on businesses and her constituents. If she will give me a guarantee that that will not happen, I will guarantee to consider her proposal more seriously.
	Let me respond to some of the other points that were made. I shall try to answer the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge if I can. The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar, who spoke on behalf of the official Opposition, did not say that his party was opposed to any capping regime. He said that it was opposed to capping regimes that hit only the lower council tax base local authorities. As he claims that Conservative councils are the more efficient authorities with a lower council tax base, is he not saying that he would accept a capping regime as long as it did not apply to Conservative authorities? Is he not therefore hoist on his own petard and guilty of what he falsely accuses me of doing?

Eric Pickles: The Minister has been most courteous in giving way and we all thank him. He has introduced a new idea that because low-spending authorities increase council tax by a particular percentage, that affects the aggregate amount raised by local authorities. However, the calculation is on the actual increase, not on the percentage, as the hon. Gentleman agrees. I have quickly calculated that the proposal would put up the average by 0.002 per cent. In order to make a 1 per cent. increase on the average, councils would have to increase their council tax by 2,000 per cent. Does he expect to be taken seriously on the basis of that maths?

Phil Woolas: Let the hon. Gentleman come with me to the Local Government Associationand in particular to the district councils that have kept their council taxes down and restricted their budget expenditure as a result of the policy promoted by the Governmentand let him justify his argument there to the other councils that have not put up their council taxes excessively. The hon. Gentleman is trying to have his cake and eat it. He cannot criticise the Government consistently for council tax increases above inflation, and then shy away from the very regime that has helped to prevent that. I believe that that answers his point.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) has the virtue of consistency and has opposed capping in any form. I respect him for that and also suggest that he is being consistent by not attacking the Government for above-inflation council tax increases. Indeed, as I recall, he was consistent in attacking the Liberal Democrat-run Sheffield council, as it was then.
	The right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks and the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) have been assiduous in putting forward their council's point of view, so I shall try to answer several of the questions that they asked. The right hon. Gentleman asked whether a council tax increase from 10 to 11 would be excessive. I reply to that by pointing out the second criterion that was used in our policy: the establishment of the budget, as well as the council tax. He is looking at only one side of the coin. Even if an increase is excessive, we will consider individual circumstances if councils challenge the cap. However, he will know, as will the hon. Member for Vale of YorkI shall try to respond to the point made about the Bellwin scheme as wellthat Hambleton council has taken the decision to use its reserves in a way that other councils have chosen not to, or have been unable to. When trying to apply a policy that is fair to that council and other councils, as the Secretary of State is obliged to do, we must consider the pattern of the use of reserves and increases to budgets, as well as increases to council tax.
	The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley)

Anne McIntosh: Will the Minister respond to my point?

Phil Woolas: Oh, I am sorry. The hon. Lady rightly reminds me that she made a point about the flooding that her area has suffered, about which she has also written to me. Emergency financial assistance is available under the Bellwin scheme and Hambleton district council has applied for it. An authority can receive assistance with non-insurable clear-up costs incurred by taking immediate action to safeguard life and property following a disaster or emergency in its area. If an application is approved, we usually reimburse the authority with 85 per cent. of eligible costs above a threshold relating to its annual budget. I hope that she accepts that the assistance and the capping are separate issues, although I undertake to write to her comprehensively about the matter.

Anne McIntosh: rose

Phil Woolas: I acknowledge the hon. Lady's point, but may I move on?
	The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire made several points and asked several questions about his council. He said that the council tax had increased from 70 to 140, but seemed to dismiss that as a trivial point. He then made what seemed to be a valid point, on the face of it, by saying that the consequence of the cap would be to reduce the council's expenditure from 13.7 million to 12 million. Although he would not expect me to dictate how that problem should be addressed, the hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth), who led the neighbouring council, criticised South Cambridgeshire for the way in which it used its reserves. I understand that South Cambridgeshire has more than 6 million of reserves. I ask him to consider the fact that I must be able to treat his authority, and other authorities that are not in such a situation, consistently.
	I hope that I can reassure the House that we are listening carefully and taking representations seriously by saying that South Cambridgeshire council applied for judicial review this week to challenge the decision. The judge had some empathy with the council. I cannot quote Mr. Justice Stanley Burnton directly, but the essence of what he said was that although he had the utmost sympathy with the authority because it did not propose to increase its expenditure excessively, the capping was predictable because it had levied an artificially low council tax in the past and reduced its reserves.

Philip Hammond: What is wrong with that?

Phil Woolas: The hon. Gentleman asks what is wrong with that, but we are trying to ensure that council tax payers are protected from excessive increases. That policy is working.
	The hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) said that he was not listened to when he met the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Jim Fitzpatrick). I am sorry that that was his impression, but the idea was to allow local authorities and, where appropriate, hon. Members to make representations. I was not obliged to receive such representations, but I was obliged to ensure that all local authorities, whether they are capped or not, are treated consistently, which is what I have set out to achieve.

Philip Hammond: Will the Minister give way?

Phil Woolas: I must make some progress. We have had a full debate in which the hon. Gentleman's points have been heard.
	The hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) had some fun at my expense in saying that Mid Bedfordshire district council is not a titan and that I should not be afraid of itI am not afraid of it, but I am afraid of excessive council tax increases. Conservative Members have derided the cap because of the relatively small amounts of money involved, but the very fact that we are discussing such small amounts means either that the problems are not as great as has been made out or that the Government's council-capping policy has been successful. Furthermore, capping is a last resort that affects only a small number of councils.

Philip Hammond: Will the Minister give way?

Phil Woolas: No; I must make my points.
	The leader of the independent group on Mid Bedfordshire district council, John Gurney, has written to me, as have constituents of the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire. John Gurney stated:
	The 13.3 per cent. increase, and a budget plan that proposes a similar increase for next year, were both unnecessary and unacceptable to our residents. I trust there will be no suggestion of backing down from the action . . . proposed.
	The 13.3 per cent. increase is nowhere near the amount indicated either specifically or generally by my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford). Although it is not for me to dictate how the cap should be met, the reserves available to Mid Bedfordshire district council are not available to other councils.
	The legislation states that the cost of billing must be met from this year's budget. The capping regime must have teeth in order to fulfil its purpose, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich made it clear that the billing costs would have to be met in the current financial year if excessive budgets and excessive council taxes were set.
	I have not had an opportunity to address all the points raised by hon. Members. I am not, as some Opposition Members have suggested, embarrassed by the Government's policy, which is to keep council tax down. Opposition Members must respond to this final pointif they oppose all capping regimes and want me to guarantee that such regimes will not be used in future, they must guarantee that they will not blame central Government for above-inflation council tax increases.

It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, Madam Deputy Speaker put the Question, pursuant to Order [14 July].
	The House divided: Ayes 297, Noes 226.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That the draft Council Tax Limitation (England) (Maximum Amounts) Order 2005, which was laid before this House on 7th July, be approved.

EU CONTRIBUTION TO THE GLOBAL FUND TO FIGHT HIV/AIDS, TUBERCULOSIS AND MALARIA

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9)(European Standing Committees),
	That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 7455/05, Commission Staff Working Document on Principles for a European Union Contribution to the Global Fund to fight HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria (GFATM) with a view to the 2006/07 Replenishment Process; welcomes the European Union update; considers this an important area for reducing poverty; and encourages the European Union and Commission to do more to maintain their strong support for tackling the three diseases, in particular through the current high level of funding for the Global Fund.[Claire Ward.]
	Question agreed to.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Government Trading Funds

That the draft Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency Trading Fund (Amendment) Order 2005, which was laid before this House on 30th June, be approved.

Extradition

That the draft Extradition Act 2003 (Amendment to Designations) (No. 2) Order 2005, which was laid before this House on 26th May, be approved.

Value Added Tax

That the Value Added Tax (Disclosure of Avoidance Schemes) (Designations) (Amendment) Order 2005 (S.I., 2005, No. 1724), dated 29th June 2005, a copy of which was laid before this House on 29th June, be approved.

Crown Proceedings

That the draft Civil Procedure (Modification of Crown Proceedings Act 1947) Order 2005, which was laid before this House on 23rd June, be approved.

Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation)

That the draft Code of Practice on Access and Unfair Practices during Recognition and Derecognition Ballots, which was laid before this House on 5th July, be approved.
	That the draft Code of Practice on Industrial Action Ballots and Notice to Employers, which was laid before this House on 5th July, be approved.[Claire Ward.]
	Question agreed to.

REGULATION OF FINANCIAL SERVICES (LAND TRANSACTIONS) BILL (PROGRAMME) (NO. 2)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 83A(8) and (9) (Programme motions),
	That the Programme Order of 23rd June 2005 relating to the Regulation of Financial Services (Land Transactions) Bill be varied as follows:
	1. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Order shall be omitted.
	2. Proceedings on consideration and Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after commencement of proceedings on consideration at this day's sitting[Claire Ward.]
	Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day
	  
	Regulation of Financial Services (Land Transactions) Bill

Not amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
	Order for Third Reading read.

Ivan Lewis: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Third time.
	The aim of the Bill, as I am sure hon. Members already know, is to extend the full protection of Financial Services Authority regulation to consumers purchasing home reversion plans and ijara sharia-compliant home finance products. That will help people to make informed choices about what may be the most significant financial decision that they make and ensure that there is a level regulatory playing field in the equity release market, much of which already falls within the FSA's remit.
	I am grateful to Opposition Members for constructive debate in Committee and for their continuing support for this useful and important measure. Indeed, the Bill may have gone through its various stages at record speed, although I do not want to tempt fate.
	As the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) pointed out in Committee, it is when there is unanimous support for a Bill's objectives that it is perhaps most important that proper scrutiny of its detail should take place. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Susan Kramer), who is not present this afternoon, on ensuring that scrutiny took place constructively and effectively. I should also like to place on record my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Caton) for so ably steering our scrutiny of the measure in Committee. I think it was the first time he had performed that role and we were all grateful for the efficient and effective way in which he did so.
	Our deliberations in Committee focused on two main points: first, whether a de minimis limit should be applied to regulation; and, secondly, the need for continuing parliamentary scrutiny of the costs of regulation.
	I hope that I was able to assure the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster that the Government had considered the de minimis threshold carefully when drawing up the Bill. Indeed, we included a specific question on whether a de minimis limit was appropriate in our public consultation. As I made clear in Committee, the Government do not believe that it is appropriate to set a de minimis threshold for the regulation of home reversion plans and ijara home finance products because of the risk that less scrupulous providers might exploit it by offering multiple loans just under the de minimis threshold to the same borrower. The risks to the consumer of cumulative borrowing would be no different from those attached to a single plan for more than 50,000. We also believe that that could create a potential distortion in the market. The view received unanimous support in the consultation.
	The respondents to the consultation included a wide spread of home reversion providers, industry representative bodies, not-for-profit organisations and consumer representatives.
	The second issue is the proper and appropriate scrutiny of costs. The debate in Committee focused on this issue, particularly in relation to regulation in this area, in order to ensure that the costs remain proportionate. I made it clear to the Committee that ensuring proportionality of regulation is hard-wired to the DNA of the Financial Services Authority. The Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 obliges the FSA to ensure that regulation for which it is responsible is proportionate and takes into account the effects on competition, innovation and international competitiveness. Should the Bill pass successfully through Parliament, the FSA will consult publicly on the detailed rules that it intends to apply to home reversion plans and ijara home finance products. Included in the consultation will be a full cost-benefit analysis.
	Furthermore, the FSA is already accountable to Parliament. Its annual report is subject to parliamentary scrutiny and must set out how the authority has met its statutory objectives and principles of good regulation throughout each year. Those principles include the requirement always to ensure that the costs of regulation are proportionate. I was therefore able to reassure the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster that the proposed amendment requiring additional impact assessments was unnecessary and would simply create an additional burden for industry, without providing any clear benefit.

John Bercow: The Minister is prudent to have regard to the importance of proportionality. Given the commitment that he has just made to proportionality and to keeping regulation to a necessary minimum, what assessment has he made of the merits of incorporating some of the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act 1980 and of the Small Businesses Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 1996, both of which hail, as he knows, from the experience of the United States?

Ivan Lewis: As we develop our better regulation agenda, we consider the lessons to be learned from the global marketplace. Where there is a case of regulation being done better and more effectively, we should of course take account of it. However, it is important to place on record the fact that, in any international dialogue about best practice in regard to financial services, the FSA comes out very positively indeed in any analysis.
	The point that I have been making since I got this job is that it is not inconsistent to say that, while the FSA is an excellent example of best practice in regulation, there is always room for improvement and always room to work with the industry to consider better regulation, both in terms of domestic regulatory measures and in terms of those that emanate from the European Union. In this country, the FSA, the Government and the industry have been quite successful in ensuring that the financial services regulations that emanate from the European Union are consistent with many of the principles that we want to see applied in terms of proportionality and best practice. That does not mean that we always win the argument, but I think most people would accept that, largely as a result of the respect that the FSA commands, we have been able significantly to influence the agenda relating to the regulations for the financial services sector that come from the European Union.
	To respond further to the hon. Gentleman, we are keen to look at the regulatory bodies in the United States, as well as globally, in achieving a level playing field in the regulation of the financial services sector. That is not easy to achieve, and there is an argument that liberalisation and the opening up of the market should be the greatest priorities for financial services. However, we certainly want to see an increased emphasis not only on internal regulatory systems within the European Union but on looking outwards to our relationships with the United States and with the emerging economies of India, China and elsewhere.
	The better regulation agenda needs to be considered domestically, as well as from a European Union point of view. It also needs to be considered in the context of the global market and the global economy. We are rightly proud of the leading role that Britain plays in that regard. There is always a difficult balance to be struck: we must protect the interests of consumers but not stifle the innovation of business, particularly in the financial services sector. We know the tremendous contribution that the sector makes to the success of the British economy, and long may it continue. I therefore hope that the hon. Gentleman is reassured by my response to his extremely interesting question, about which I may speak to him on another occasion.
	The issue of the costs of regulation, which has been raised by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) previously, has been the subject of some discussion. It is important to know that the costings in the published regulatory impact assessment remain estimates, as I have said before. They are derived from figures published by the FSA in relation to the existing mortgage regime, and are based on future projections of market size, which have left considerable room for dynamic market growth. In addition, the precise nature of the regime that will apply to home reversion plans and ijara products will not be finalised until the FSA has consulted on its detailed rules. As it is statutorily obliged to do, the FSA will issue a detailed cost-benefit analysis alongside its consultation on the detailed rules. That CBA will enable us to further refine the costings in our RIA currently, and it is possible that in the wake of a more detailed market analysis and definition of a tailored FSA regime, the projected costs of regulation will fall.
	While there is always cost to regulationto be fair, hon. Members on both sides of the House have accepted that in this contextit is important to remember that in this case the industry is willing to bear that cost, because of the benefits that it believes it will bring to the home reversion market in terms of improved consumer confidence. In the industry's view, that will allow the reversion market to continue its dynamic growth. A deeper and more liquid market in these products should in turn create new opportunities for market entrants. I would therefore encourage Members not to see regulation in this case as purely a deadweight cost to industry, because it clearly has potential benefits and can reduce reputational risks for lenders. I therefore remain convinced that, on balance, the benefits of regulation, both in terms of consumer protection and in terms of securing the confidence necessary for future market growth, outweigh the projected costs.
	Having briefly outlined our discussions in Committee, let me conclude by reaffirming that the Government believe that this Bill will benefit both consumers and providers of home reversion plans and ijara home finance products. Regulation, as facilitated by the Bill, will help people to make informed choices when purchasing such products and offer valuable consumer protection in the event of any mis-selling. It will also ensure a level regulatory playing field in the equity release market and should generate the increased consumer confidence that is essential if this market is to continue to grow.
	On that basis, I would ask Members to support the Bill. I commend it to the House.

Mark Field: I realise that any self-respecting Opposition spokesman would by convention claim on reaching Third Reading that at least some of his party's concerns remained unresolved. I suppose that that is the case, although Her Majesty's Opposition cannot really claim that this Bill is an improvement on the one initially published in May. The fact is that our collective deliberations have made not one jot of difference to the wording of the Bill before us today. In fairness, that might owe more to the fact that this politically uncontentious piece of legislation contains the princely sum of two clauses. Perhaps it might be down to my effectiveness or that of my parliamentary colleaguesat least that is the story that I am sticking to.
	In the four weeks since Second Reading, however, not only have we had a constructive Committee stage but we have lived through some tumultuous times nationally. The terrorist atrocities in London and the G8 conference in Scotland followed hot on the heels of the more uplifting, triumphant announcement that our capital city will host the 2012 Olympic games, and the UK's hosting of the series of Live 8 concerts. All of that has been packed into the past few weeks, during our consideration of this Bill.
	We have also learned of eventful times for the Economic Secretary, who sped back to his native north-west from the Second Reading debate to attend his sister's wedding celebration. I know that it is common for young men to be fearful of their fathers-in-law, but I suspect that the newest arrival to the Lewis clan will have more cause for trepidation in his relationship with his new brother-in-law. The Economic Secretary also revealed in Committee his split allegiances: red in his political affiliation, and bluewell, sky blue at leastin footballing terms. I sincerely hope that, if only to ensure harmony around the dining table in the Lewis household, the Economic Secretary's new brother-in-law is not divergently schizophrenic in his own football and political allegiances. I am sure that if he were a Tory that would be bad enough, but for him to be a Manchester United supporter as well would be a step too far.
	As I warned in Committee, the universal political support for the Bill makes its scrutiny, however brief, all the more important. I should reiterate my own view: I would welcome any move to increase public confidence in home reversion or equity release schemes, not least in the light of the adverse publicity in the financial press that such schemes have received in recent years. It is important to stress, however, that the Bill's proposals are likely to apply far more widely in the years ahead than may be envisaged now.
	Equity release will not be the preserve of elderly folk wishing to remain in the family home while releasing capital to make up for inadequate pension provision during retirement. I believe that the single biggest demand for such schemes in the years ahead will be from middle-aged people in the workplace demanding the opportunity to release equity in their homes to give their children a lift on to the otherwise elusive property ladder. In many ways that should be regarded as a welcome trend, but it also reflects the tendency towards greater indebtedness among people in their 20s, especially those choosing to attend university and staying on for post-graduate study.
	As the Minister said earlier, during the Bill's progress we have received reassurances from the Treasury about its willingness to review the operation of the legislation carefully in its early years to ensure that the regulatory burden is kept to a minimum. I accept that our probing amendment to introduce the de minimis provision might in itself have led to unintended consequences. Certainly it is not our desire to lay open the risk of home reversion plans and ijara home finance products being exploited by unscrupulous lenders offering multiple loans to the same borrower at a level just below the threshold that Parliament might set. Nevertheless, I hope that attention will be paid to our concerns. Our main worry is that the sheer cost of regulation and administration is such that some larger providers might be dissuaded from involving themselves in equity release schemes just below a certain level. The risk is that that might result not just in diminished choice, but in a deterioration in the quality of service for some of the more vulnerable people seeking to benefit from the Bill.
	We have also tried to express some of our more general anxieties about the operation of the Financial Services Authority. I am sure that we shall return to that theme, both in general debate and in debating other legislation. Let me stress again that we consider it crucial, if London and indeed Edinburgh are to remain highly competitive global financial centres, for all regulation to be practical and pragmatic in its approach.
	There is little doubt that many market professionals here in London regard the emergence in the United States of Sarbanes-Oxley rules as a substantial hindrance to US competitiveness in financial services. As ever, their true effects will take time to work through the system. We accept that the FSA needs to get the balance right between consumer protection and promoting competition and competitiveness in a global financial context. We should, however, see the situation in proportion. The expansion of the FSA's powers to take in equity release, home reversion and ijara home finance products cannot be seen as an enormous expansion in the regulator's power.
	We entirely accept the need for more consumer confidence about these products, particularly given even stronger evidence that property is being used as a proxy for more pension planning by a generation of savers currently in their thirties. Market profitability and product innovation will be of key importance in a relatively immature market, and I have been reassured by the Minister's acceptance that his Department will keep the matter under regular review.
	I thank my hon. Friends the Members for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Gauke) and for Forest of Dean (Mr. Harper), who provided such sterling support in Committee. It occurs to me that both were born in the 1970s. They are a constant reminder to those of us who are members of a slightly older generation that there may be some urgent self-interest in equity release schemes before the world is too much older. I also thank my hon. Friends the Members for Basingstoke (Mrs. Miller) and for Kettering (Mr. Hollobone) for their contributions on Second Reading.
	Notwithstanding the absence of contentious debate, this Bill's passage has provided a useful opportunity to place some of our concerns on the record. No one disputes the importance of placing equity release schemes and home reversion plans under the regulator's auspices, but we do hope that the FSA will keep its costs and those passed on to consumers to an absolute minimum.
	As you may have gathered, Madam Deputy Speaker, amid the serious and worthwhile debate there have been some opportunities for levity. For example, the Economic Secretary is now well aware of my rather obsessive knowledge of the pop music charts. I have to confess that I needed to look in a reference book to discover what was number one in the UK charts on the very day that he was born, in the first week of March 1967. I have to report that in the context of this Bill, the song in questionRelease Mecould scarcely have a more appropriate title. In truth, I suspect that Engelbert Humperdinck may have had other things on his mind than equity release and home reversion plans, but his words were strangely prophetic as he sang, Please release me, let me go.
	On that hopefully not too discordant note, I, too, am happy to commend this Bill to the House.

Vincent Cable: The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) has said essentially what I wanted to say. This Bill has been well managed in an harmonious spirit and on the basis of great consensus, both on Second Reading and in Committee, where my hon. Friend the   Member for Richmond Park (Susan Kramer) represented my colleagues and me.
	I thank the Economic Secretary for referring at some length to regulatory costs, which were my main concern. He made the entirely valid point that what is relevant here is not so much the Government's activities as those of the Financial Services Authority. I hope that the FSA has heard our concerns, and that it will take them properly into account in drafting the regulations that will flow from this legislation. The Economic Secretary also made the valid point that the danger with consensual legislation is that things can slip through the cracks. I want to mention a couple of cases where that might have happened, one of which could be quite serious and relates to the ijara proposals. It is clearly too late to introduce amendments, but it is worth flagging up these issues so that the Government can reflect on them before the Bill proceeds to the other place.
	There were three basic motives behind the Government's decision to introduce legislation on home equity release schemes: consumer protection; raising confidence in products, so that the market can expand; and creating a level playing field to prevent what the experts call regulatory arbitragein other words, preventing capital from flowing from regulated products into unregulated ones, because the costs associated with the latter are lower. On Second Reading, I asked whether this legislation should cover areas that appear to have been excluded from such regulation and from mortgage regulation, such as buy-to-let properties. Having subsequently discussed this issue with bodies such as the Council of Mortgage Lenders, I have been persuaded that doing so would not be appropriate and that the Government were right to exclude them.
	However, those bodies also referred to a gap in mortgage regulation that might well lead to regulatory arbitrage. This problem relates to property investment clubs, which are rather different from buy-to-let schemes, in that they do not involve conventional professional landlord management relationships. We are talking about people who are looking to make speculative gains out of housing equity, and in many cases they are driven by the same motives as those that underpin the transactions with which this legislation deals. There is undoubtedly a great deal of abuse of consumers. Some of us will be familiar with the glossy leaflets distributed in our constituencies, advising people to ring a strange telephone numberno address is givenand to turn up to a meeting, where they will then be briefed on how to make themselves very rich by entering into particular property transactions. A good deal of money is undoubtedly being teased out of people in the form of, for example, hidden charges.
	I understand that the Department of Trade and Industry has used existing regulation to crack down on a couple of such schemes. I ask the Minister to consider whether it might be sensible to cover them with a relatively modest enlargement of the scope of the Bill when it goes to the other place.
	My other point is more serious and relates to the provisions governing ijara finance. We all welcome the idea of creating a form of finance that our Muslim constituents can use comfortably because it meets their religious as well as market requirements. It is an eminently sensible idea and we all rush forward to endorse it. People in the property business and, more particularly, in the Law Society have pointed out, however, that we may be unwittingly creating problems for many of those families by encouraging them to take ijara mortgages without adequate legal protection.
	The nature of ijara transactions generally means that the property remains in the ownership of the lender. A person who would normally be a mortgagee is, in fact, a tenantan assured tenant, but the person who is acquiring the house through ijara finance is not the owner of the house. The equivalent of the mortgage lender is the owner, which presents two serious problems.
	First, the occupant of the house is in a much weaker position in respect of disputes over arrears. Under the Housing Act 1988, the lender or owner of the property could evict after two months of arrears, whereas under conventional mortgage arrangements, the mortgagee has security of tenure. In those circumstances it is a matter for a court and a court order has to be obtained. The ijara borrower is therefore in a much weaker position than the conventional mortgage borrower.
	Secondly, another difficulty applies either when someone wants to pay off their obligations or to foreclose. Under a conventional mortgage, the mortgagee is protected in that the mortgage lender is obliged by law to secure the best possible price and to make available, if he sells the property, a full account of the transactions. Under an ijara arrangement, however, the provider has no such obligation. According to lawyers, we could unwittingly place people who undertake ijara transactions for perfectly good reasons in a very weak legal position with respect to the providers of those products.
	I ask the Minister to consider, as the Bill proceeds to the other place, whether a couple of legislative changes could be made. I am not in a positionthis is not the proper contextto draft amendments, but I hope that the Minister will at least reflect on the idea of making a couple of changes to protect the many people who may want to take advantage of the provisions. One change could provide that any contract for funding under an ijara scheme should allow the party receiving those funds to repay them at any time during the term of the arrangement. The other could ensure that the party receiving the funds had the same protection as that afforded to a mortgagor on realisation of security by a mortgage. These are technical and legal points, which I ask the Minister to reflect on. They are mentioned in the spirit of attempting, at this late stage, further to improve a Bill that we strongly support in principle.

David Gauke: May I begin on a personal note as a new Member of the House? This is the first Bill for which I have been present for all House of Commons stages. I have to say that, if this is what to expect, passing law is a somewhat more painless and quicker process than I was previously led to believe. I take note of the Minister's comments about the Bill's passage possibly being a record. I certainly do not intend to go on for long and threaten any speed records for legislation passing through the House. [Hon. Members: Hear, hear.] I thought that that would be a popular remark. I have also noted the point that the greater the all-party support, the greater the scrutiny that legislation deserves. However, I think that the Bill has received adequate, if brief, scrutiny.
	The Bill has been welcomed by all parties. As I said on Second Reading, I represent a constituency with a lot of property-rich but cash-poor people. They are faced with many increased costs such as higher council tax, and welcome the opportunity for equity release. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) said, parents with children in higher education also find that some sort of equity release can be beneficial.
	The key, however, is how the FSA will enforce the Bill. Its role has been discussed as the Bill has made its way through the House, as has the tension that appears to exist between Treasury Ministers and the Prime Minister. Treasury Ministers often say that the FSA is one of the best regulators in the world. I do not necessarily disagree, but on 26 May the Prime Minister said in a speech that there is
	something seriously awry when the FSA, established to provide clear guidelines and rules for the financial services sector and to protect the consumer against the fraudulent, is seen as hugely inhibiting of efficient business by perfectly respectable companies that have never defrauded anyone.
	In Committee, the Economic Secretary took a skilful line in trying to reconcile that with the position of the Chancellor and other Treasury Ministers, who have said that the FSA is wonderful, world class and the envy of the world. He remarked that some people saw the FSA as the Prime Minister had described and that it was inevitable that the regulated would so perceive the regulator.
	The perception that the FSA inhibits business is, however, a serious matter, because such a perception can drive away business and reduce innovation, and the Prime Minister was right to identify that concern. We should all recognise that, whatever the reality, the perception of the FSA is significant.
	The FSA adopts a risk-based approach. That is to be welcomed, but it means that FSA employees tend to err on the side of caution and follow the box-ticking route. As the Prime Minister also said:
	The regulator who fails to regulate risk that materialises will be castigated. How many are rewarded when they refuse to regulate and take the risk?
	That is one of the difficulties with the FSA. Whatever is said at the top of the organisation, FSA staff will always err on the side of caution. My concern is that the financial services sector as a whole might become too heavily regulated, with rules that are too strict and enforced too rigidly. That concern is widespread in the City and in the financial services sector, despite what the Economic Secretary has said while the Bill has passed through Parliament.
	Finally, we must be aware of how the FSA treats the financial services sector, and of the dangers of overregulation that we face in this country.

Ivan Lewis: With the leave of the House, I should like to reply to the debate.
	First, may I say that the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) has applied himself to this debate with common sense, as he does to every debate? That is probably why he is not a candidate for the leadership of his party. However, I want to let him into a secret: the first chairman of the FSA was a Manchester City supporter, and the current chairman is one too. Given that the club has just decided to swap Shaun Wright-Phillips for Andy Cole, it is possible that we could do with that expertise to advise us in the boardroom.
	I should also like to tell the hon. Gentleman that, when he identified the song that was No. 1 in the charts on the day of my birth, the Paymaster General asked that he do a similar job for her during the recess and report back when the House resumes. I am sure that he will agree to undertake that job.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We have gone from football to the pop charts, so let us now get back to the motion before the House.

Ivan Lewis: I accept your wise counsel, as ever, Madam Deputy Speaker; but, seriously, I thank the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster for his constructive approach to what is a consensual Bill.
	The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) raised a reasonable issue about property investment clubs. When he spoke about the glossy leaflets offering obscure information, strange telephone numbers and dodgy advice that were being delivered, it brought to mind the Focus leaflets that are distributed in many of our constituenciesbut I will not go there, Madam Deputy Speaker, in view of the advice that you have given to me.
	On a serious point, the FSA is considering the concerns about those property investment clubs and will, of course, take appropriate action, if necessary, and advise Ministers accordingly.
	I want to respond to the hon. Gentleman's comments on ijara products generally and the danger of unintended consequences. Obviously, I do not ignore his concerns, but it is important to say that those schemes are legal and already in use. In those circumstances, the FSA regulations will ensure that consumers benefit from full and clear advice. Despite the danger of unintended consequences, that is undoubtedly a significant step forward, although we will keep an eye on the concerns that he has expressed.
	The hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Gauke) tends to move about during debateshe was nearly called twice on one occasion recently, as a consequence of such a manoeuvre. He referred to the FSA. It is important that we are clear about the fact that this is not a complex issue: the FSA is regarded globally as a world leader, but does that mean that it is perfect or that it need not engage in the Government's better regulation agenda, as other regulators must do? Of course it does not mean that.
	Do we accept that there is always a concern in any organisation that the principles and objectives articulated at the most senior level do not always play further down the organisation in terms of day-to-day interactions? That is a genuine, authentic concern. The management of any significant organisation of any nature, whether in the public sector or the private sector, must have regard for that concern. It is important that the objectives and principles that apply in respect of that organisation's leadership are also reflected in the day-to-day dealings between the regulator and those who are regulated.
	The hon. Gentleman's overall point was about those in the financial services choosing to invest in this country. The FSA has arguably contributed to the fact that the financial services sector continues to regard this country as almost the best place in which to do business. Far from detracting from that, the fact that we have leading regulatory practice in the financial services sector makes this country a very attractive place to do business. Yes, we need to continue to ensure that the better regulation agenda applies. We do not want to be smug or complacent because the FSA has rightly earned global respect. Equally, we do not want to face false and bogus choices. We should not suggest that, on one hand, the FSA is somehow not doing its job in the most effective manner possible, while on the other, not recognising the fact that we must achieve the right balance between consumer protection and not stifling innovation and enterprise in the financial services sector. Thus far, the FSA has maintained that balance reasonably well, and we should support the work that it does.
	The FSA does a lot of important work on behalf of this country in responding to regulations emanating from the European Union. Our partnership with the FSA is important in that respect because much of the regulation in the financial services sector flows from the EU rather than from domestic legislation. It is extremely important that the Government and the FSA have a constructive relationship in ensuring that this country's vision of an appropriate landscape for financial services regulation is the one that prevails in any argument that arises, not only at EU level, but in the international or global economy.
	Now that I have responded to the points made during the debate, let me say a little about why the Bill is important and why putting it on the statute book is justified. We believe that its provisions will help people to make informed choices, offer valuable consumer protection and ensure that there is a level playing field in the equity release market, most of which already falls within the scope of FSA mortgage regulation.
	FSA regulation will extend valuable consumer protections to elderly consumers when they are making one of the most important financial decisions that they are likely to takea point that has not been mentioned in the debate. It will ensure that Muslim consumers are able to access all elements of the growing market in sharia-compliant home finance products while benefiting from the protections afforded by FSA regulation. It will also help people to make informed choices about the home finance products they purchase, create a level regulatory playing field in the equity release market and, by helping to improve consumer confidence in such products, facilitate future market growth. On that basis, I am pleased to commend the Bill to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

ROYAL ASSENT

Madam Deputy Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
	Appropriation (No. 3) Act 2005.
	Finance (No. 2) Act 2005.

Summer Adjournment

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.[Mr. Watson.]

Fraser Kemp: I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving me this opportunity to speak in our summer Adjournment debate, not least because for the past four years I have been subject to an enforced, but enjoyable, silence in the Government Whips Office.
	Today, I shall highlight some issues affecting my constituency and the wider city to which it belongs. That city is also ably represented by my hon. Friends the Members for Sunderland, North (Bill Etherington), for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) and for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Mrs. Hodgson). I shall also take the opportunity to promote the city of Sunderland and Wearside in general and to tell the House about a dynamic city that has transformed itself in recent years.
	Last month, Sunderland launched a major marketing campaign asking people to see the city in a new light. Much of the credit for the city's transformation in the past 20 years goes to the leader of the city council, Bob Symonds. Twenty years ago, we were facing the closure of our mining industry and the decline of shipbuilding, but we have moved from a position of decline and managing decline to one of managing progress. That is a big difference. A few decades ago, it would have stretched credulity to say that Sunderland could be one of the UK's great places for inward investmentpeople would not have believed it. Now, however, we have achieved astonishing change, both economically and culturally.
	Sunderland, I remind hon. Members, is the biggest city between Leeds and Edinburgha fact that is often forgotten. There was bad news at Longbridge earlier in the year, but the city plays host to the most successful car plant in Europe. This week, the workers at Nissan learned not only that they are the most productive workers in Europe but that their plant is more productive than any plant in the United States. Time and again in recent years Nissan has demonstrated its ability to win contracts to build new models, so I pay tribute to the managing director, Colin Dodge, and the work force. On behalf of the work force and the company I thank the Government for their support for research and development, which has ensured that those models are built in the UK. If anyone wants to drive a truly British car they can, in a Nissan.
	Young people in my constituency have achieved much. Again, there has been a big transformation. I am proud to report that with the creation of children's centres, the opening of seven new primary schools in the past eight years, and the building of three new secondary schools in the next few years, we can offer full wraparound education. A great deal of investment has gone into education, which is making a difference in any area that has suffered from underachievement by many young people. Wearside was chosen last year as one of the top five places for business investment by leading accountants KPMG. To reinforce that choice, the area accounts for 12.5 per cent. of the population of the northern region yet produces 25 per cent. of its gross domestic product.
	We are drawing up plans to ensure that we are the leading intelligence city within the UK. In my constituency, there are thousands of new jobs coming on stream at Rainton Bridge. We have invested in infrastructure, and are starting to see the benefits. Sunderland was recently included in the world's top seven IT-intelligent communities by world opinion leaders. The key to that success is not just the people in the area but the partnership between the public and private sectors. We have taken steps to make that happenwe are not just planning for today but making sure that we put plans in place for the next five, 10 and 15 years. It has always been necessary to plan for the future, and that has never been more so than in today's global economic environment. The old ways, the old rules and the old expectations about the economy do not apply any more.
	Those are the wider Wearside issues that I wanted to bring to the attention of the House, but I also think that a couple of local groups in the constituency are worthy of mention. The Square Root group, whose members are predominantly women, has raised hundreds of thousands of pounds in the past couple of years to transform a derelict eyesore at the heart of that former mining community of Herrington Burn into landscaped gardens and play facilities for children. It is a great example of people power, and an inspiration to many in my constituency, including me, showing what people can do to transform a derelict area.
	Wearside Women in Need, a dedicated organisation led by Clare Philpson, gives support to victims of domestic violence. It also undertakes imaginative work with domestic violence offenders. It has transformed and, in some cases, saved the lives of many families and individuals in desperate circumstances. A great deal more needs to be done, however, and I urge the Deputy Leader of the House of Commons to tell the Home Secretary that any additional resources that can be provided to tackle the scourge of domestic violence would make a good and positive contribution.
	It is easy for politicians to condemn young people and categorise them as yobs and so on but, equally, there are many shining examples, including young Grant Hollis, a pupil at Houghton Kepier school, who represents my constituency in the Youth Parliament. He does excellent work representing to me and the city council the views and aspirations of young people in the city.
	On local democracy, I urge the Minister, in consultation with others, to ensure that in next year's local council elections we have the opportunity to do what we have done for many yearsthat is, to vote by post. To the best of my knowledge there have been no problems with that in the city of Sunderland, and in many areas it has doubled the turnout. Anyone who believes in democracy and is a confirmed democrat must be encouraged so that we can double turnout.
	Those are some of the issues that I wanted to mention, and I am grateful for the opportunity to do so. There has been a big transformation in the area, and I hope that the Minister will take on board the points that I have made.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind all hon. Members that Mr. Speaker has imposed an eight-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches.

David Heath: I always welcome the pre-Adjournment debate as a valuable opportunity for Back Benchers to raise issues. I am sorry that it is so abbreviated today and that we do not have enough time for all those who wish to be called. It is therefore not appropriate to take a panoramic view of the world and its problems in the short time available. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington, East (Mr. Kemp), who extolled the virtues of the city of Sunderland. I am pleased that he now has the chance to do so vocally, rather than being constrained by the office of Whip.
	I propose to use the opportunity unashamedly to raise matters in my constituency, and it would be inappropriate if I were to abuse my position on the Front Bench and take longer than the time allocated to Back Benchers, so I propose to stay within the limit. There are three issues of great importance to my constituency that I wish to raise. One is the still-awaited new Victoria hospital in Frome. I am getting increasingly worried that the hospital, which was promised back in 1998 and should have been completed years ago, is still so far from completionindeed, it is still a greenfield site. I am having a meeting on the subject with the local primary care trust next week, but I remind Ministers that if we do not get a satisfactory solution, I shall raise the matter after we return from the summer recess.
	Another problem is the A303a recurrent problem for local residents, both in safety terms and in traffic noise terms, particularly at this time of year, when the A303 carries an enormous amount of traffic bound for the south-west of England. However, I shall spend the bulk of my time on a very local issue, the water supply to the village of Witham Friary in my constituency. I do so for two reasons; first, because I have had a prolonged dialogue on the subject with the clerk to Witham Friary parish council, Deborah Ligatt, and with members of the parish council and other residents, and secondly, and to me equally importantly, because I live in Witham Friary, as do my family, and we are directly affected. I therefore have a direct interest, which I declare.
	We are unusual in that our water supply is provided by the Duke of Somerset's estate. It is a private water supply. It is not connected to the large water companies. Although in many ways that is a satisfactory arrangement, in other ways it is becoming less satisfactory, and increasingly so over recent years. We have had problems with the quality of supply because of contamination. We have a particular difficulty because there is a thin layer of greensand that provides the filter, with the result that there is often bacterial and other contamination of the supply. The other consequence is that the water is highly acidic, which means that it contains a lot of dissolved metalsiron and copper, and we hope not lead, but we have to be careful about old piping.
	The imminent difficulty is that the Environment Agency has applied a daily extraction limit of 193 cu m on the water supply, which theoretically is enough for our needs, but in practice, because of very substantial leakage from the old main, is far from adequate. As a result, there have been interruptions in supply for all the residents in the village. The interruptions have caused difficulty and inconvenience to those who need their domestic supply and could lead to public health problems. However, the situation is catastrophic for those who rely on the water supply for their agricultural undertakings. Dairy farmers around the village are finding it difficult to water their livestock due to the interruptions of supply.
	The estate is trying to rectify the problem. It has addressed the water quality by undertaking to replace the limestone bed of the reservoir and starting to fit alarm telemetry and automated systems. However, we have a real problem with supply. We need to replace the cast-iron main and the spurs from it. The alternative is to add water from the water companies to the supply, but Bristol Water has indicated that it would cost 400,000 for it to provide water to our supply. Such a proposition is completely beyond what would be reasonable for the Duke of Somerset's estate. Wessex Water simply says that it would be unable to provide additional water.
	The problem that we face is that no one seems to have any responsibility for maintaining water supply in the event of the failure of a private supply. I am not criticising the Duke of Somerset's estate because it has assiduously tried to find a solution. It has been helpful and has discussed the matter frequently with local residents. However, we are not only exasperated by the lack of progress, but worried about what could happen in the future. We have found no reference to an obligation to maintain supply through our research. The regulatory authorities enforce the requirement to maintain water quality for reasons of environmental health, but if a water supply fails, it appears that no one can take appropriate action. There is a big question about what will happen if the estate is unable to fund the new main that is needed, or if it is unwilling to do so. It is to the credit of the estate that it has given no indication that it will walk away from the water supply to the village, but who would stop it doing so? If it walked away, what would be the consequences for the village?
	A possible solution to the problem would be to drill an additional borehole. The parish council and my researchers have gone to various authorities to find out who could assist us, but we have been passed from Department to Department. We approached Ofwat, but it told us that we were classed as resale customers and that it had no responsibility for such customers. It suggested that we should examine our written agreements for water supply, but we have no such written agreements. The supply has been there since the year dot. We just get the water supplied from the reservoir up the hill, so there is no written agreement about the quantity or quality of the supply. Although the Environment Agency has regulatory functions to avoid contamination and prevent unnecessary extraction, it appears that it has no responsibility to maintain supply. Government Departments have no interest in the matter, so we are in a quandary about exactly what we can do to ensure that the villagealbeit a fairly small onedoes not eventually have no water. Most people would accept that that would be entirely unsatisfactory.
	A meeting is being held on 3 August to consider possible funding for a new borehole. Will the Minister take what I have said back to Ministers in the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and ask them what assistance they can give to us? I have already written to them, but this is a desperate matter for the people whom I represent and my neighbours, so I want to be able to help them.

Gavin Strang: Before the House adjourns for the recess, I ask hon. Members to consider the need for action to prevent nuclear proliferation, following the disastrous failure of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty review conference in New York two months ago.
	The NPT came into force 35 years ago and is built on three pillars: first, it prevents proliferation by stopping states that do not have nuclear weapons acquiring them, and by preventing states that already have nuclear weapons from acquiring more; secondly, it obliges states that have nuclear weapons to disarm; and, thirdly, it enables nuclear technology to be used peacefully.
	The NPT is subject to a review conference every five years. The review conference in 2000 was widely viewed as a successit adopted a 13-step programme for the total elimination of the nuclear arsenals of the nuclear weapons states.
	If it was important to make progress in 2000, a quick glance at events since then tells us that it was crucial to make progress in 2005: in December 2003, Libya revealed that it had been working for years on a secret nuclear weapons programme; in January 2003, North Korea announced its withdrawal from the NPT; and in February 2005, North Korea announced that it had manufactured nuclear weapons. Furthermore, the International Atomic Energy Agency has found and declared uranium-enrichment activity in Iran and the AQ Khan trafficking network has been exposed. Despite some progress on disarmament, the UN has stated that the world contains approximately 27,000 nuclear weapons. World awareness of the importance of keeping nuclear materials out of the hands of terrorists has risen exponentially since the review conference in 2000.
	The non-proliferation treaty regimes have not kept pace with the world situation, and the conference on disarmament and the UN disarmament commission have both been fruitless for years. Against that background, one would have expected a degree of urgency as delegates met for the 2005 NPT review conference. It was an opportunity to put things back on track, to ensure that the tools that we have to prevent proliferation work, to impose disarmament and to enable peaceful nuclear technology that is fit for purpose, but that is not what happened. Nearly two thirds of the 26 days of the conference were taken up with deliberations over logisticsit took 10 days to agree an agenda. Rather than agreeing vital measures to strengthen the non-proliferation regime, the conference concluded with no substantive agreement whatsoever.
	The NPT was an agreement between the five states that already had nuclear weapons and the states that did not. The non-nuclear states pledged not to acquire nuclear weapons, in return for which the nuclear weapons states committed to disarming their nuclear weapons capabilities. The fact that that deal at the heart of the NPT remains unmet is an important part of the background to the difficulties encountered at the review conference in May. The nuclear weapons states are seen to be half-hearted about their side of the NPT bargain and to have resisted attempts to focus attention on their disarmament obligations.
	The current security climate has understandably led to calls for a tougher non-proliferation regime for non-nuclear weapons states. While we nuclear weapons states are perceived as disengaged from our side of the NPT deal, however, there is the danger that our insistence on non-proliferation will not carry adequate credibility with the non-nuclear states.
	The stalemate in New York was depressing and alarming in equal measure, but it did not detract from the importance of the NPT and the need to strengthen the NPT's mechanisms and operations. We must make progress in many areasseveral credible proposals have been suggested, and I shall briefly outline five of them.
	First, we must achieve the universal adoption of the IAEA's additional protocol, which is designed to ensure that states cannot divert fissile material to secret weapons programmes. In the parlance used in the field, the additional protocol must become the new standard for verifying compliance with non-proliferation commitments.
	Secondly, we should adopt the IAEA proposals for incentives for countries to forgo the development of fuel-cycle facilities. The supply of the necessary fuel for peaceful energy uses would be guaranteed, possibly with the IAEA as guarantor, in return for which states would pledge not to develop domestic uranium-enrichment or plutonium-separation capabilities.
	Thirdly, we must secure a fissile material cut-off treaty to halt the further production of plutonium and weapons-grade uranium, and I welcome the UK Government's pledge to work for progress in that field.
	Fourthly, we must see the early introduction of the comprehensive test ban treaty, pending which all countries must affirm their commitment to a moratorium on testing. To the Government's credit, the UK signed that treaty in 1998, but it can come into force only when all five nuclear weapons states, and all states with civil nuclear reactors, have signed. Eleven such states, including China and the United States, have still not made that commitment.
	Fifthly, disarmament is one of the three pillars of the non-proliferation treaty, and it is essential that progress be made on the elimination of all nuclear weapons, as agreed by the NPT states, including the UK, at the review conference in 2000.
	Before the House is due to return from the summer recess, there will be a meeting of Heads of State and Government and a high plenary level event at the UN General Assembly in New York in September. United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has published a report for decision by the world's leaders at that summit, which makes key recommendations concerning all three pillars of the NPT. In this month's communiqu on non-proliferation, the G8 welcomed the attention given to that subject in the Secretary-General's report and declared themselves ready to engage actively at the September summit.
	I am glad that my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour, the Deputy Leader of the House, is replying to the debate, and I hope that he will convey this request to his colleagues in the Government: I urge the British Government to do all they can to secure a positive outcome for the people of this country and the world.

Michael Fallon: I am grateful to have the opportunity to raise three local issues that affect the quality of life in my constituency. They are not unique to my constituency; they probably affect all of us. Indeed, some of them have been raised before.
	The first is the planning system, and how it applies to Travellers, in particular, who want to develop encampments, especially in the green belt. My constituencyand, I am sure, the constituencies of many other hon. Membersis almost under siege from multiple applications by Travellers. The villages of Crockenhill, Swanley, Hextable, West Kingsdown, Knockholt and Halstead have been inundated with applications.
	The applications are not, in the most part, made by those who like to claim that they enjoy the itinerant lifestyle, in which they may be impoverished but are free to pursue their own way of life, moving on from site to site. In the main, when investigated, the applicants turn out to have formidable assets and bank accounts, and in many cases to own property in the constituency already. They are simply people who are trying to build on the green belt where farmland happens to be cheapprecisely because it is in the green belt, so people should not be able to build on itin an area with easy access to the motorway system.
	Our district councils seem almost defenceless now. When they rule against Travellers their decisions are often overturned by the Secretary of State on appeal. The cases are prolonged by legal posturing. Many of the applications are retrospective, and those applicants will do everything possible to prolong the determination process. Now we are told that they are covered by a definition of Travellers as some sort of special reserved minority group.
	I have raised that issue before, and I raised it specifically during business questions three or four weeks ago. I am sure that it is only an oversight that the natural courtesy of the Leader of the House and his deputy has not led to my receiving a reply. The Government have undertaken to review the planning system in relation to Travellers, and I asked when we would see the results of that review, and when we could expect the Government to come to the aid of district councils to protect our residents against those who simply want to abuse the normal planning procedures and the green belt.
	The second matter to which I want to draw the attention of the House is one that I find hard to describe. It is a related issue, concerning the subdivision and marketing of plots of farmland to the naive, who purchase them at very low cost under the mistaken impression that they may one day be able to obtain planning permission on them.
	There are two examples in my constituencya field opposite London road in the village of Dunton Green, and a field opposite Hale Oak road in the village of Sevenoaks Weald. Clearly, unscrupulous operators are marketing those plots to the naive, and I do not think that we can simply leave everything to the principle of caveat emptor. So far as I understand it, the only Government response has been to empower councils to serve article 4 notices direct on the land, so that anyone who visits the plot that they are about to purchase or considering purchasing will be aware that the district council is unlikely ever to grant planning permission on it. That is not enough. What happens now is that the plots, once bought, are staked out and sub-divided. Different entrances are created from the road into the field concerned, and before we know where we are local residents, instead of looking at a piece of farmland, look at what appears to be the start of a building site. It seems that the law needs updating, and, if the Minister cannot answer the point tonight, I should be grateful if he wrote to me.
	I have nine railway stations in my constituency, some of them major, such as Sevenoaks and Swanley, others smaller and well used to commute to London, and others smaller still and unmanned. A useful report published today by the National Audit Office looks at the condition of our railway stations, and I am speaking not of our major terminuses but of the ordinary, humdrum stations that each of us has in our constituencies. There are two issues.
	Unmanned stations seem rapidly to be disappearing into a state of disrepair and vandalism. The issue is: who is responsible for them? The length of the leases given to train operating companies is clearly not sufficient for them to invest substantial sums in the upkeep and improvement of the security of stations. I am at a loss to understand who is responsible for that. Is it Network Rail, or the Strategic Rail Authority, or the Department of Transport? I should be grateful if the Deputy Leader commented on that.
	Related to that, and far more alarming, is the proposal by South Eastern Trains to de-manif that is the right wordsome of the stations that are manned at the moment. The proposal is to remove ticket office staff altogether and convert stations that were manned into unmanned stations. I must ask whether the House considers this the right time to be removing staff from stations. To whom are people supposed to report suspicious packages if there are no staff on the station? From whom can they seek assistance, particularly if they are women travelling alone at night who may need it? Again, an excellent report from the NAO, which I commend to the House, raises that issue of who is responsible for the upkeep and security of our railway station network, and I should be grateful if the Deputy Leader answered that point.

Jim Dowd: It is a pleasure, as always, to follow the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon). One of the issues that I want to raise relates entirely to the South Eastern Trains plan to reduce booking office hours and clerks across south-east London and Kent.
	Consultation recently concluded on that ludicrous proposal. As I understand it, it now resides with the Strategic Rail Authority to determine whether it should go ahead. Intriguingly, when South Eastern Trains notified the London transport users committee and the rail passengers committee for southern England of the proposals, it said:
	Should this go unchallenged, it will take effect.
	I do not know anybody who has written in support of those ludicrous proposals, whether from my constituency or the broader area. The company was, I think, being somewhat optimistic in imagining it would get away with its subterfuge.
	The reasons for the proposal elude everybodymy constituents and others. The chair of London transport users committee, Mr. Brian Cooke, said that it was
	one of the daftest proposals we have seen from a Train Operator.
	Mr. Mark Woodbridge, regional director of the regional passenger committee for southern England, said:
	The upside for passengers as a direct consequence of these proposals has not been demonstrated by SET. Passengers do not like stations unmanned, preferring the human touch, seeking help and advice when needed and having a perception that someone is in control
	the very point that the hon. Member for Sevenoaks made
	and looking after their welfare. Replacing people with machines is not the way forward as they do not offer the full range of tickets and cannot provide the human interface or advice that passengers demand.
	Machines cannot deal with such matters in these days of ever more complex fare structuresspecial offers, awaydays, Apex fares and so on.
	The hon. Member for Sevenoaks mentioned the absence of staff at railway stationsI think he said that it affects nine stations in his constituency. In my area, it affects Catford Bridge, Catford, Beckenham Hill, Bellingham and Lower Sydenham, which are in my constituency, and Penge East and Sydenham Hill, which, although just over my boundary, are used by many of my constituents. Even stations that are that close to central London will be abandoned for all but three hours a day. There will be no human presence therenobody to give advice or guidance, and no reassuring presence. They will become another part of the public realm that we leave at risk from those indulging in antisocial behaviour and that normal, decent, law-abiding citizens will feel unsafe in using.
	I hope that Members will consider early-day motion 447, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Gwyn Prosser), which details all these issues. Its 25 signatories cover every part of the London, south-east and Kent franchises. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will persuade the Strategic Rail Authority to throw these stupid proposals into the bin where they belong.
	The other issue that I wish to raise, as a London Member, is that of the Olympics coming to London in 2012. Hon. Members will be aware that we had been due to debate the London Olympics Bill today until the sad news on Sunday of the death of Sir Edward Heath. I never had a great deal to do with Sir Edward, but he was always immensely kind and considerate to me, as I am sure he was to everyone else who came across him. [Interruption.] Perhaps some Conservative Members do not share that view, but I will not pursue that.
	I pay tribute to all involved in the Olympic bid. It was a tragedynot as tragic as the events of 7 Julythat their great achievement in Singapore should so quickly have been diluted by the events of the following morning. They were disappointed not to get the homecoming that they deserved, but there are seven years between now and the games, and I am certain that we will see how they build on the progress that has been made so far.
	At the time of the announcement, I was regarded as something of a sceptic, as is proved by my response in Hansard to the statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport some 18 months ago. Since then, however, I, like millions of fellow citizens, have been won over by the enthusiasm, imagination, innovation and sheer temerity, in some ways, of the bid put together by all those involved. Now, we need to work not only on providing the games but on ensuring the greatest possible benefit across the countryan enduring legacy, not only for London, after the games have gone in 2012. As a contribution to that, I suggest to the Department for Transport and/or Transport for London that when the Channel tunnel high-speed rail link comes through to St. Pancras, we should rename either St. Pancras or Stratford station, London Olympic. That would be rather like London Waterloo, in that it would endure for many years, long after the games are gone and forgotten.
	In conclusion, and on a more serious note, I seek the indulgence of the House in mentioning one of my constituents and an extremely good friendIain Hepplewhite. He is well known to many Labour Members, and others, and to many members of the Press Gallery. He was the parliamentary Labour party's press officer for many years and worked for the Deputy Prime Ministeras he then was notbefore going on to be head of press at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and head of communications at the Department of Trade and Industry. He then became head of communications at the Film Council. Less than six months ago, he was diagnosed with an especially aggressive and rapacious intestinal and stomach cancer. The treatment that he received was excellent but unavailing. Yesterday, he returned to his native north-east to be with his parents. He will be 39 next Sunday.
	In my experience, the House is a much more generous and sensitive place than some would have us believe. I hope that all hon. Members will join me in sending our very best wishes and thoughts to Iain and his family for whatever may lie ahead.

Shailesh Vara: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to make my maiden speech.
	My constituency, North-West Cambridgeshire, is relatively new, having been created in 1997, and I am only its second Member of Parliament. However, the area that the constituency covers has a long and distinguished history and many eminent people have left their footprints in its soil. My immediate predecessor was Sir Brian Mawhinney, recently ennobled and now Lord Mawhinney. He is a formidable politician. He was diligent, conscientious, hard working and always put the interests of his constituents first. He was fortunate and privileged to serve in high office, including as Secretary of State for Transport and chairman of the Conservative party. Despite all the pressures that high office brings, he always found time for his constituents.
	I am sure that Lord Mawhinney will continue to be involved in local affairs, especially as his title is Lord Mawhinney of Peterborough. When he was a Member of Parliament, one of his passions was supporting the local football team, which is affectionately known as The Posh. As he is now chairman of the Football League, I suspect that, on at least some Saturdays, he will be found on the terraces of other football clubs.
	Before 1997, some 60 per cent. of my constituency was part of the former Huntingdon constituency, where the Member of Parliament was the former Prime Minister, Sir John Major. Sir John and Dame Norma continue to live locally and remain involved in several local concerns, especially charitable interests. Given Sir John's love of cricket, hon. Members will not be surprised to hear that on the odd Saturday he can be found at a local cricket match, and Dame Norma holds an annual charity cricket match in support of Mencap.
	A third former Member of Parliament, Lord Renton, lives in my constituency. Hon. Members know that I do not exaggerate when I say that he is one of the most charming men in the Palace of Westminster. Soon to be 97, and still active in another place, he is the president of the Association of Conservative Peers. I am grateful for all the kindness and support that all three previous Members have shown me. It is usual for a new Member to have one former Member of Parliament looking over his shoulder to ascertain what he isand perhaps sometimes is notdoing. Occasionally, there are two former Members. However, it is rare to have three former Members of Parliament looking over one's shoulderand such an eminent trio at that.
	My constituency covers the southern part of Peterborough, south of the River Nene, and some villages and towns that go down to, but not including, Huntingdon. Peterborough is characterised by rapid expansion. Several people there commute regularly to nearby places. The expansion is best typified by an area known as the Hamptons, where it is proposed to build thousands of houses. The major challenge will be to ensure that the house building is matched by the appropriate infrastructure.
	Moving south in the constituency, there are picturesque villages such as Hamerton, which has some 30 houses, and Sawtry, Yaxley, Warboys and Ramsey, which have a few thousand residents. The abiding theme in the southern part of the constituency is that it is of a rural nature. One particular concern for my local farmers is the proposed reduction in European quotas for sugar beet, and I, for one, will be vigorously taking up their interests wherever that is necessary.
	I was recently fortunate to be one of the 20 Members chosen in the ballot for private Members' Bills, and I propose to attempt to introduce a Bill on breast cancer screening for women. At present, women between the ages of 50 and 70 receive a notice from their local hospital inviting them for a screening. I propose to try to change that so that women between the ages of 45 and 75 are covered. The logic is that women are now living longer and healthier lives, and it seems sensible to acknowledge that by covering a higher age group. And of course, we all know that women below 50 suffer from breast cancer, as well as those over that age. I would have thought that prevention was better than cure. Let us not forget that we are not simply talking about the one in nine women who suffer from breast cancer; we are also talking about their families and friends, and that involves a huge number of people. I very much hope that the Government will give my private Member's Bill due consideration.
	Many years ago, I remember watching Prime Minister's questions on television with my parents. I said to them, I hope that one day I will be on those green Benches. For this Ugandan-born Indian, and Britain's first Gujarati Member of Parliament, a dream has certainly come true. I am particularly pleased that my parents are watching this today, not from the other side of a television screen but from the Public Gallery. Madam Deputy Speaker, you can tell from the look on their faces that my parents, Lakhman and Savita Vara, are delighted to be here rather than on the other side of a screen.
	There can be no better privilege for anyone than to represent their fellow citizens in this, the mother of Parliaments, and I am deeply grateful to the people of North-West Cambridgeshire for affording me the opportunity to represent them here. They are wonderful people and it is a lovely constituency. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me the opportunity to speak today. I also thank the other right hon. and hon. Members here for extending the usual courtesies to one who is making a maiden speech.

Ashok Kumar: I congratulate the hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Mr. Vara) on making such a moving maiden speech. He talked about all the former Members of Parliament who reside in his constituencyhe will not be short of advice, that is for sure. May I say, as someone who is also of Indian descentI was born in India of Punjabi descent and I share the same cultural spirit as the hon. Gentlemanthat it is a great pleasure for me to follow him? I wish him many happy years in the House and I wish his constituents well. I am sure that he will serve them with great spirit.
	I want to use today's debate to highlight an aspect of competition law with which the Deputy Leader of the House might be familiar, given that he was previously a Minister in the Department of Trade and Industry. It concerns the Office of Fair Trading's recent consultation on newspaper and magazine distribution. This is a matter of concern to me and, I am sure, to other hon. Members.
	If I wanted a newspaper or a magazine, I would go to my local newsagent or a corner shop to purchase one. Alternatively, I could order one, be it the Financial Times, the Daily Sport, or whatever interested me. The reason that we are able to get such newspapers locally is that the present distribution system enables us to purchase them everywhere, from supermarkets to local newsagents. The local papers that serve my area, such as the Evening Gazette and The Northern Echo, have also benefited from the unique distribution arrangement.
	The Evening Gazette, printed in Middlesbrough, goes to some 550 individual outlets across Teesside and parts of north Yorkshire. The vast majority of those are purely local and far removed from the high street. Its editor tells me that only 11.1 per cent. of its sales come from copies purchased in the big supermarkets. The overwhelming majority of its sales come from local newsagents, convenience stores, service stations and corner shops.
	That arrangement is possible only because of a long-standing agreement between the publishers of the country's newspapers and magazines and a small number of distributors. The system works. Unlike most specialist retailers, newsagents have been a great success story. In 1995, there were 45,000 newsagents in the UK. There are now 54,000. Inevitably, however, the supermarket chains seem to want to crush this system, accusing it of being anti-competitive. They want to set up their own exclusive delivery system for magazines. They want a distribution system that would corner the lucrative mass market in the magazines that they sell.
	The OFT is examining this issue, although there is no trace whatever of any popular desire among the people of this country for change to the current system. At the moment, the demand from supermarkets is for liberalisation only in the sale of magazines. The existing big distributors, however, carry magazines and newspapers together. They are not separate entities living in separate marketsthey are both printed words on paper. They are distributed through a system that   ensures equality of access. Breaking up that arrangement and allowing the supermarkets to stitch up exclusive deals with distribution firms of their own choosing will have devastating effects. It will mean that the costs for all remaining distributors will rise if they are left to supply only newspapers and a few magazines to local newsagents and corner shops. It will mean that the distribution of newsprint to small villages, small towns and small shops could no longer be subsidised by sales to high street giants and out-of-town superstores.
	I see that as a direct attack on the availability of news information and comment to the community. It will certainly affect my constituency, which consists of small towns, villages and outlying estates. All of those are served by thriving newsagents and good entrepreneurs in small shopkeepers. I wonder whether a newsprint distribution system will be willing to incur the costs of delivery to some of the small settlements in my constituency. How will they be able to take a small number of papers to tiny pockets of villages such as Skinningrove, Charltons or Carlin How if they cannot be supported by bulk sales to a supermarket? At that point, distributors might start to demand delivery charges, which most small shopkeepers will be unable to bear. If those shops are driven out of the newspaper market, local papers such as those serving my constituency will also feel the dual impact of lost sales and a declining readership. That will affect everyone in this country.
	Local newspapers are a bastion of democracy in this country. As Members of the House, we might not always like what they say and might mutter about some of the letters that they carry, but they genuinely represent democracy and the free exchange of news and information in a local area. The possible options proposed by the OFT could act as a way of killing those organs of democracy. We should prevent that. News and information are not mere commodities that should be traded like jam and potatoes. Local papers and the ability to buy them are key requisites of a good, ordered and civilised society. The OFT cannot be allowed to kill off such an important function.
	The Deputy Leader of the House should talk to his colleagues in the Department for Trade and Industry and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. I have written to them and they haveobliquelytaken in my concerns. I realise that they are in a difficult position because consultation is still under way, but I am still concerned, as are my local newspaper editors and newspaper managers. They are all equally horrified. They are all worried about the future of their local papers and their ability to reach out to a wide membership.
	I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House will take what I have said seriously. He has always done so in the past.

David Amess: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Mr. Vara) on his magnificent maiden speech. He spoke without notes, with great hand movements, with tremendous conviction, and with a wide knowledge of his constituency at a very early stage. I know I speak for everyone in the House when I wish him well for the future. He has a very bright future.
	I have a shopping list for the Deputy Leader of the House. On a number of occasions, he will have heard me raise the plight of my constituent Maajid Nawaz, who, along with two other Brits, has been detained in a Cairo prison for three and a half years. Very recently, Maajid Nawaz and the other two British detainees witnessed the beating of another prisoner. They went to his assistance, and were then attacked themselves. Those three British detainees are now in the second week of a hunger strike. Mrs. Abi Nawaz, who came to my surgery recently, is extremely worried, and I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House will do what he can to persuade the Foreign Office to deal with what is currently a dire situation.
	I agonised about going public on the next issue that I intend to raise, but the family involved have now insisted that I do so. Last December Phil Collings, who was 20 years old, died outside Talk nightclub. The incident took place outside the club. One assailant held Phil around the neck, and the other held him from the front. The two men were arrested. One was the son of a police officer. I am advised by the family that the police never informed the pathologist who carried out the post mortem that Phil had suffered a blow. The result of the post mortem was therefore that he had died of natural causes. The family are not at all happy with the Crown Prosecution Service, which says it has decided to take no action. I have tried quietly to deal with Departments.
	The family have now insisted that I raise the matter because two weeks ago a local taxi driver picked up a local police officer who started talking about the CCTV footage of the incident, which clearly showed that Phil had been involved in an altercation with others before his death and had received a blow. At this moment, the official position is that no CCTV footage exists. When I spoke to the taxi driver on the telephone last week, he was happy for me to go public. He will not rest until Phil's mother gets justice for her son. He was a twin. The family have been destroyed by what has happened, and I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House will convey my disquiet to the other Departments with which I have tried to deal in a normal fashion without going public.
	Let me raise a similar subject, and ask the Deputy Leader of the House to draw the attention of Home Office Ministers to the BBC 1 programme Drunk and Dangerous. Everyone saw it: it was peak viewing at 9 pm two months ago. Disgraceful scenes were shown. Will the Deputy Leader of the House kindly ask Home Office Ministers why the nightclubs featured in the programme receive no objections from the police when their licences come up for renewal? I find that quite extraordinary.
	The Deputy Leader of the House will also know that Southend council, my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (James Duddridge) and I have a dispute with the Office for National Statistics, which claims that there are 20,000 fewer people living in Southend than actually live there. On 20 June, I held a public meeting about local bus services, which have had to be cut as a result of the funding situation. So many people turned up to that meeting that they could not all fit into the building. We are talking about people aged from their 60s to their 90s, and it was heartbreaking to hear the devastating effect that those cuts have had on their quality of life. The Minister for Local Government is doing a splendid job in trying to support the local councilwe had a very constructive meeting with himand I raise this issue again simply to ask the Deputy Leader of the House to pass on my concerns.
	I am the chairman of the all-party group on solvent abuse, and today the Department of Health published its framework for volatile substance abuse, which is very good news. Until now, the Society for the Prevention of Solvent and Volatile Substance AbuseRe-Solvhas had to depend on charitable giving from the national lottery. The national lottery and LloydsTSB, which used to fund Re-Solv, have withdrawn their funding saying that funding for substance abuse victims should come from the Government. I ask the Deputy Leader of the House to relay my concerns to the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), and to request that she arrange a meetingI suspect that she will agreeso that we can address the funding problem.
	During the last such Adjournment debate, I told the House that Southend United were involved in the play-offs at Cardiff for promotion to league one. I am delighted to report to the House that they won. I also told the House then that St. Bernard's high school for girls, in Westcliff-on-Sea, reached the final of the under-13s national football championship, held at Aston Villa's ground. I am delighted to report that they won. I further told the House that I hoped that the UK would win the right to stage the Olympic games in 2012. I join Mr. Putin, Mr. Chirac and Mr. Schrder in being absolutely delighted that we will indeed be staging the Olympics. In a debate in Westminster Hall in March 2004, I asked our excellent Minister for Sport and Tourism whether, if we were successful in that bid, Essex, and particularly Southend, could be involved. I ask the Deputy Leader of the House to find out from the Minister for Sport and Tourism how Essex and Southend will be involved in the staging of the Olympics.
	In conclusion, I wish everyone a very happy summer recess.

Siobhain McDonagh: I begin by extending my congratulations to the hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Mr. Vara) on an excellent maiden speech. We understand the pride that his parents must be feeling.
	I am very grateful for the opportunity to speak today, and I should like to bring to the House's attention a very serious issue affecting my constituents. My local hospital trust, the St. Helier and Epsom University Hospitals NHS trust, covers Merton, Sutton, Epsom and beyond, and was created when Epsom hospital got into financial difficulties and merged with St. Helier, which is the nearest hospital for most of my constituents.
	In January, local NHS managers voted to overturn the views of residents in Surrey, Merton and Sutton, and to build a new critical care hospital in the Belmont suburb of Sutton, rather than on the site of the existing general hospital at St. Helier. This decision means that St. Helier will lose its accident and emergency, maternity and other critical care services, despite the fact that Belmont is one of the wealthiest areas in the country, and that people living close to it have very high life expectancy, very good access to health care and very high levels of private health care.
	That has happened despite the fact that the area around St. Helier has the greatest health needs in the whole catchment area and that people living there have up to 10 years' less life expectancy. The people living there are the most likely to need to go to hospital and the least likely to have access to a car. It has happened despite the fact that the whole catchment area can reach St. Helier within the critical golden hour that our health experts agree is crucial; and despite the fact that more people can go to St. Helier within 20 minutes than they can to Sutton; and despite the fact that St. Helier is far more accessible by public transport than Sutton. It has happened despite the fact that independent analysts called the Sutton choice deeply flawed and despite the fact that St. Helier was easily the first choice of people living in the catchment area. It is also favoured by all the MPs in Sutton and Merton and by both Sutton and Merton councils.

Chris Grayling: rose

Siobhain McDonagh: Consequently, four months ago, Merton council called these plans in to be considered by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. It believed that the plans were wrong and would increase health inequalities. Earlier this week, I was informed that my right hon. Friend is still considering whether to refer the case to the independent reconfiguration panel. Yet four months on, the NHS authorities are continuing to plough ahead with their plans, using public money, even though my right hon. Friend has not made up her mind. If a local authority were planning to reorganise its schools, it would not be allowed to continue spending taxpayers' money until the decision had been ratified. Why should it be different in the health service?
	Let me be clear: the decision to choose Sutton over St. Helier was wrong. The team behind the plans calls itself Better Healthcare Closer to Home. It is a good job that the Trade Descriptions Act does not apply to the NHS. Crucially, the organisation has neglected the needs of those who need the NHS the most. Those people will not be getting better health care.
	The issue of health inequalities has been all but forgotten by Better Healthcare Closer to Home. Why else would it be running down St. Helier when the area around St Helier has the lowest life expectancy, the most emergency admissions, the highest rate of accidents among children, the lowest levels of general good health, the most people with long-term illness, the most babies born with low birth weight, the most people without access to primary care, the lowest incomes, the largest black and ethnic minority population and the least likelihood of owning a car?
	Overall, it would be cheapest to patients if the hospital were based at St. Helier, but that has not been addressed by the Better Healthcare Closer to Home team, even though Government rules say that the cost to patients, not just the cost to hospital trusts, must be included in the plans. Even the Better Healthcare team itself admits that, if the Sutton site were chosen, people living in seven of the 10 most deprived postcodes in the region would have to travel further than they do at the moment.
	Any decision on hospital reorganisation has to undergo public consultation, but I believe that the consultation was biased against St. Helier. Thousands of letters and petitions were ignored, including thousands of views from my own constituents. Despite all that, St. Helier came out on top. Official documents rated St. Helier as the best optionbetter than Sutton by a factor of more than 7 per cent. If anything, the public were even more enthusiastic about St. Helier than the professionals. More people chose St. Helier than any other site, and even in the Sutton area fewer than 10 per cent. of residents supported the Sutton site.
	The results of the consultation appear to me to be comprehensive, yet they have been reversed because Better Healthcare says that the consultation was inconclusive and that it now has new information in any case. Absurdly, it says that because people wanted their hospital to be accessible, their decision in favour of St. Helier was somehow incongruous. Better Healthcare Closer to Home simply cannot accept that the St. Helier choice is accessible because it is in the north of the catchment area, while Sutton is geographically more central. But more people live around St Helier. Two thirds of the people in the catchment area can get there within 20 minutes and everyone can get there within the golden hour. It has the best public transport, and total journey times for patients would be shorter to St. Helier than to any other site. Better Healthcare also claims that the overall impact on the NHS would be better if Sutton were chosen.
	I have a great deal to say but I appreciate that I must not go over my allotted time. However, one frustration felt by my constituents is that, although they are the least likely in the entire catchment area to be healthy, they are not represented on any of the boards that make decisions about our health service. I hope that my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House will take my concerns and views to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, so that the matter can be called in for review by the reconfiguration panel. In that way, my local health service can be prevented from squandering money on a plan that people do not want.

Bob Spink: I received a letter today stating that the London gateway port development had been approved. That development will have serious consequences for my constituency and I oppose it, on behalf of my constituents, for reasons both national and local. However, in view of the lack of time for debate, I shall speak only about the local reasons tonight.
	The development will cause serious disadvantages locally, because it will involve a massive amount of house building, which will cause a loss of green belt in my area that we can ill afford. That house building programme, and the many heavy goods vehicles that will be used, will also have a massive traffic impact in the areaa very serious issue for my constituents and for the people of south Essex.
	To facilitate the construction of the port, a very deep and wide channel will have to be dug along the Thames estuary and through my constituency. A total of 32 million cu m of spoil will be removed, and the channel will run right across Canvey Island's sea defences. We must ensure that those defences are not in any way put at risk.
	The spoil will be dumped on ground to the west of Canvey Island, and it is inevitable that that massive amount of earth will change ground-water levels locally. Part of my constituency has 40,000 residents but is some 8 ft below sea level, so ground-water levels are a matter of serious concern. Moreover, I have no doubt that that spoil dumping will also cause environmental problems.
	I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House will ensure that the Department of Transport makes its policy clear. That policy should include promoting a new Parkway rail station for Canvey Island, and improving the road infrastructure in south Essex generally. Both those initiatives should be undertaken before the development goes forward.
	On another topic, Panorama this evening will broadcast a report, by a nurse and a journalist, that shows that there is a systemic problem in many hospitals in this country. It reveals that the care of elderly patients is sometimes unacceptable. Vulnerable and frail old people, some of whom are dying, suffer a lack of the tender loving care that they are entitled to expect at that difficult time of their lives. They are denied dignity, and there is little or no concern for their welfare. They are left in great pain and distress, and sometimes they are left hungry. They have nothing to drink, not even something to wet their mouths with, and consequently their mouths are dry and start to develop sores.
	The programme also reports that elderly patients have been bullied and abused, which is entirely unacceptable in our health service. I am sure that that problem is not widespread but I guess that the same things happen in other hospitals around the country, in part because elderly people are very vulnerable and not able to speak up for themselves.
	We know that hospitals have become less clean over recent years, and that thousands of people die or have limbs amputated as a result. We also know that there is institutionalised abuse of the elderly in some hospitals and residential care homes. The vast majority of nurses who care for those people are dedicated and wonderful, and they deserve our thanks for the work that they do in difficult circumstances. But we must ask why there is a problem with the care of the elderly. Is it a systemic problem that involves training and the supervision and management of nursing care? Does it involve the use of temporary and agency nurses? Is that part of the problem?
	Like many MPs, I visit hospitals in my constituency. I did so a week or so ago, and I approached a member of staff sitting at the front desk who simply shrugged at me, indicating that she could not speak English. That did not appear at all satisfactory. I say again that I welcome the care and dedication of the majority of nurses and hospital staff, but we can no longer hide behind political correctness and ignore what is happening to a few vulnerable, elderly patients in hospitals and care homes in the UK. I honestly believe that such behaviour would not have been possible when matrons were running hospitals. Hospitals would not be quite so unclean under matrons as they are now. I ask the Government to instigate a national inquiry into the problems revealed by Panorama and consider whether matron would help.
	Finally, to turn to foreign affairs, the Turkish invasion and occupation of Cyprus is one of the greatest crimes committed in Europe since world war two. It amounted to ethnic cleansing and some 200,000 people were uprooted, made refugees and displaced from their homes, and they still remain displaced. It is time that the international community stopped its appeasement of Turkey and made it plain to Turkey that it cannot move forward in Europe or the international community until it resolves that difficulty and ends peacefully its improper and illegal occupation of the beautiful island of Cyprus.

John McDonnell: I shall try to be as brief as possible. I want to raise yet again in the House the threat of the expansion of Heathrow airport to my constituency because things have moved on apace since the last summer Adjournment. I congratulate my colleagues the hon. Members for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) and for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Hurd) on the excellent work that they have done in recent months ingeniously to raise this issue on the Floor of the House as often as they possibly can. The whole community in our area is now raised against the proposals that BAA has published in recent months.
	As hon. Members may well know, during the past 15 years at Heathrow airport, we have had a terminal 4 inquiry, at which we were told that that was the full extent of the airport's expansion. We then had a terminal 5 inquiry, at which BAA wrote to other hon. Members, me and my constituents to say that, if it received permission for terminal 5, there would be no third runway. In fact, terminal 5 doubled the airport's capacity. Within months, BAA reneged on its commitment and proposed a third runway.
	The third runway is now outlined in the master plan that BAA published only months ago. It includes not just a third runway, but a sixth terminal. We will therefore lose villages wholesale. At Sipson village, 700 homes will be completely demolished. Life in the villages of Harmondswoth, Longford, Harlington and Cranford Cross will become unliveable because the air pollution that results from a third runway will go beyond the limits of the European directive on air poisoning.
	Let us return to the Government's figures on such developments. The last detailed study was carried out in the early 1990s and put the impact at about 4,000 homes. So 10,000 people in my constituency will be forcibly removed from their community. That is the largest clearance of a population since the Scottish clearances themselves. We face the closure of three primary schools. Whole communities will cease to exist. Community centres, greens, churches, pubs, doctors' surgeries, shops and businessesa whole communitywill be demolished as a result of a search for profits for BAA and the aviation industry.
	The Government have set in train a decision-making process, called Project Heathrow, during which a number of research papers will be developed by experts with representatives from the local authorities, BAA and the industry. The project will report in late 2006, when the Government can make their decision. In the meantime, my whole area is blighted, with families who are unable to move because they cannot sell their property, and families who are unable to make decisions on their long-term future. Why? Because BAA wants to maximise its profits.
	Last week, BAA announced profits for this year of 500 millionhalf a billion pounds. I attended BAA's annual general meetingFriends of the Earth bought me a single share; it has generated 12p this year, which I shall have to declare and return to Friends of the Earth, although I am sure that the organisation will not use it. At the AGM, I asked BAA's directors whether before making any decision they would bring these matters back to shareholders for a decision. The chairman of BAA made a strong recommendation against that resolution, which fell thanks to the proxy votes that he held in his pocket. He went on to award himself a 15 per cent. increase in his salary and an increase in his shareholding. The lessons are, first, that shareholder democracy does not work in this country and, secondly, that BAA is willing to put profits for itself and its directors ahead of the interests of not only my constituents, but the constituents of every MP representing the London borough of Hillingdon and west London.
	The Minister should take back to the Secretary of State for Transport, the Prime Minister and the rest of the Cabinet the message that if the Government decide next year that the third runway will go ahead, they will face the biggest environmental battle that this country has ever seen. Not only will there be parliamentary action on the Floor of the House and legislative combat, but I believe that there will be direct action on a scale not seen before in this country or in Europe as a whole, because there is so much anger about the forced migration of so many people.
	What has been brought to my attention in recent days about the operation of the airport is deeply worrying. After the London bombings, we have had a number of anxious moments at the Heathrow terminalsthere have been several security scares. It is now being reported that there has been a failure to train key staff to deal adequately with security matters. I have written today to the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Transport saying that in the light of the London bombings we must review once again the security arrangements at Heathrow, especially the training of staff, so that we can deal properly with the safety and security of not only the travelling public, but my many constituents who work at Heathrow airport.

Christopher Fraser: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Mr. Vara) on his eloquent maiden speech. I know that he will make a first-class contribution to the House; he is already becoming a first-class Member of Parliament.
	I wish to raise the serious issue of consumer credit and a voluntary code of practice. I draw the attention of the House to the tragic case of my constituent Mark McDonald, who was driven to suicide by debts totalling 65,000 that had been amassed on his credit cards. His wife and friends had no idea of the situation. That is just one tragic example of the many people in Britain today who are getting into serious financial difficulties.
	Debt itself is not bad, but unaffordable debt certainly is. Debt that is affordable one year might not be the next if people's employment circumstances change or interest rates change significantly. Eleven per cent. of credit card holders in Britain make only a minimum payment each month and 4 per cent. of British households are regarded as having too much debt. The Consumer Credit Counselling Service revealed last month that 25,000 people rang its helpline for advice in May this yearalmost double the number who called in May last year. Steve Wiseman, chief executive of Norwich citizens advice bureau has said:
	The average debt of our clients is 27,000, not including mortgages, but it is certainly not unusual to see debts of 60,000 or more.
	I pay tribute to the work of citizens advice bureaux and other debt advice organisations that help many people in my constituency and elsewhere to deal with their financial difficulties.
	I welcome the reintroduction of the Consumer Credit Bill, although it is a pity that the Government could not find more time for it in the last Parliament. The last consumer credit legislation was passed 31 years ago. In the intervening period, the credit landscape has changed beyond all recognition, in part as a result of changing lifestyles and attitudes to debate, and in part because of the liberalisation of financial markets, which has allowed a highly dynamic and sophisticated industry to develop.
	Only one type of credit card was available in 1971, but today there are more than 1,300. Thirty years ago, 32 million was owed on credit cards, but today the figure is almost 50 billion. I welcome the Government's announcement that they are setting aside 45 million to provide free advice to people struggling with unmanageable debts. That money will allow debt advice charities to train many advisers to help people in the situation in which my late constituent found himself. Could the Government explain to the House, however, how the money will be allocated and when we can expect it to make a difference? Although it will help to alleviate the problem, we must look at other options to prevent people from ending up in unaffordable debt.
	It is important to recognise, as the Select Committee on Treasury has done, that responsible lending is about more than meeting the minimum legal requirements. It is about driving forward best practice and treating customers fairly. A credit card lender should provide short-term debt as part of a convenient service, rather than pushing a form of debt that sucks borrowers into a long-term cycle of indebtedness. There are many ways of reducing the problem of massive debt, not least financial education. In 2002, Melanie Johnson, the then Member for Welwyn Hatfield, who was also a junior Minister at the Department of Trade and Industry, spoke about the importance of financial education:
	We want to build a generation of empowered consumers who can manage their credit effectively; who understand why it is important for them to master their finances, and how they might achieve that; who can make appropriate decisions about their finances; who understand the choices open to them and their implications.
	Three years later, we obviously have not reached that point, so what measures are the Government taking to achieve their aspiration?
	Financial education is not helped by the way in which some institutions make credit readily available to young people, particularly those who are starting university, as they are already burdened with the Government's 3,000 tuition fees. Nearly every bank offers a special student account with incentives like free CDs or travel passes for people who open current accounts. Many also offer credit cards, often with high limits. Do the Government agree that offering a credit card to a student, who probably has a limited income, is not the most responsible approach for a lender to take? It is important that lenders assess the ability of the consumer or customer to repay and that that assessment should be based on as complete a picture as possible of their current income and credit commitments as well as their payment history. What evaluation have the Government made of the potential for a certain amount of data sharing between institutions? Mr. McDonald's widow believes that if companies shared information, such tragic cases might be averted.
	Unsolicited increases in credit and spending limits should also be questioned. Have the Government assessed the need to make it a requirement that people request an increase in their limit, rather than simply letting that happen as a matter of course. In conclusion, this is clearly an emotive subject. It is easy to blame large corporations for the situation in which borrowers find themselves when they cannot afford the debt that they incur, but personal responsibility must not be forgotten. There is no doubt in my mind that credit can be secured far too easily, sometimes with tragic results. It is incumbent on companies that are in business to make money to ensure that they have ethically and socially responsible policies in place when offering credit. I do not want to prevent people from obtaining credit, but when it is granted I should like to be sure that all the relevant factors have been taken into account, including a realistic appraisal of an individual's circumstances and their ability to pay.
	Self-regulation through industry codes may well play an important role in supplementing statutory requirements. What measures will the Government take to encourage the development of codes of practice and adherence to them? The best way in which to tackle these issues is through a code of practice. The banking code, established under the last Conservative Administration, has been particularly successful. Will the Minister assure me that the Government will work with the industry to encourage companies outside the code to join it? I welcome the revised code, which has been in operation since the end of March, and I look forward to discussions about how it can be improved in future.

George Mudie: I shall be brief, as I know that other Members want to get in.
	I want to place on record a matter that is of growing concern in my constituencythe implementation of the asylum seekers dispersal policy. The dispersal policy made perfect sense when asylum seekers landed in Dover and elsewhere in great numbers. They competed for scarce local resources in a way that helped neither the residents of those areas nor the asylum seekers themselves, so to disperse them around the country made sense. However, the way in which that is being done in Leeds and in my constituency is unfair and insensitive.
	Asylum seekers come through one of two courses. They may come through the National Asylum Support Service, in which case they are placed nationally and contracts are bought from the private sector, or they may come through the local council. There are eight constituencies in Leeds. Three of the constituencies seem to be home for the majority of the   asylum seekers. My constituency is probably the recipient of the second largest total. NASS has placed contracts with landlords who have bought up the cheapest houses in the city. With the amount they get from NASS, it is sensible for them to find the cheapest housing. They are making a great deal of money, but they have caused havoc in the cheaper end of the housing market and they have caused havoc in the area because of the sheer numbers.
	Parallel to that, the city council is taking up council houses in the same area for asylum seekers. In one ward of my city, Harehills and Gipton, an inner-city ward where there is great poverty and deprivation, we have a huge number of asylum seekers. That is causing all sorts of problems. In the past two weeks the Home Office has suspended the arrival of any more, on the advice of the police and the local community, but that will be reviewed in six weeks and I fear the influx will restart.
	If we have such large numbers coming from different areas and speaking different languages, consider the problems that that causes for an inner-city primary school and the problems already faced by staff teaching inner-city children, for whom that is their one life chance. There may be nine different languages being spoken, and the teachers, with very few additional resources from the Department for Education and Skills, struggle to handle the new situation in an inner-city school where they would struggle anyway.
	Let us consider medical services. It is a struggle to get doctors to come into the inner city and to get on their list in the inner city. It is difficult to find a doctor who will put new patients on their panel. If the asylum seekers' situation is mishandled, it can cause all sorts of problems.
	The Home Office must review the policy. The number of asylum seekers is falling and there is time to review the situation, to think about it and to be more sensitive in placing them. I am in favour of a cap, so that if I take my fair share, which I will cheerfully do, I do not have to take the share of other areas or constituencies which, for one reason or another, do not have premises available for asylum seekers.
	Asylum seekers come to the United Kingdom with shattered lives. They are escaping death and civil war, and they want a friendly reception. Yorkshire people will give them a friendly reception. My city will give them a friendly reception, but the dispersal policy must be kept in perspective and needs to be more sensitive. I hope that the Minister will convey that to the Home Office.

Paul Burstow: I want to raise the case of one of my constituents, Mr. Vinchenzo Favata. Last September, he was diagnosed with cancer and his consultant at the Royal Marsden prescribed a drug called Glivec, which has been appraised by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. The treatment did not begin until November because approval for the funding of the drug from Sutton and Merton primary care trust was delayed.
	Three weeks ago, my constituent was scanned and it was found that the tumour had started growing again. The clinician recommended an increase in the dosage of the life-saving drug, which required the primary care trust's panel to make a further decision. The panel met yesterday and did not agree to the extra funding, which has plunged the family into despair and limbo.
	Decisions in the NHS are meant to be taken on the grounds of clinical evidence, clinical need and clinical judgment. Despite a clear clinical recommendation, why has my local primary care trust seen fit to deny Mr. Favata an increased dosage of the life-saving drug to fight his cancer? I have been in touch with the primary care trust and the family is appealing the decision, but I raise the matter today in the hope that the Deputy Leader of the House will draw it to the attention of Health Ministers so that they can take action to stop a practice that seems to be the rationing of drugs on the basis of cost alone.
	I also want to talk about planning in my constituency. I suspect that the problem of predatory developers affects many hon. Members who represent suburban and urban constituencies. Such developers are out and about in my constituency looking for every last little piece of back-garden land on which they can erect flats. A company called Blazemaster has submitted a planning application to demolish 26 houses in Cheam Common road and Lavender avenue and build 133 flats in their place, thus depositing numerous extra cars on to a road infrastructure that is barely able to cope with the traffic already on it and imposing additional stresses and strains on local services.
	Such behaviour cannot be a tolerable way in which to manage the need for additional housing. It is a direct consequence of PPG3, which includes back-garden land in the definition of brownfield land. The daft designation fails to recognise the biodiversity offered by back-garden land and the other contributions that it makes, so I was delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt) advanced the case for re-designating back-garden land when she introduced her ten-minute Bill yesterday. I hope that time will be found to consider the Bill and that it will find favour because it would do a good deal to reassure my constituents and rebuild confidence in the system.
	I agreed with much of what the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) said in her speech. I hope that we will be able to take forward better health care closer to home and make sure that we do not have the new hospital in Sutton, but at St. Helier.

Michael Wills: I am grateful for the opportunity to talk about important changes that have taken place to the borough council that serves most of my constituency. Over the past eight years, Swindon borough council has failed to deliver the services that the people of Swindon deserve. The council failed between 1997 and 2001, when the Labour party ran it, and it has failed since 2001, which was when the Conservatives took it over. Between 2001 and 2004, the council's overall performance varied between poor and weak. The social services got a zero star rating in 2002, 2003 and 2004.
	I think that things went wrong because when Swindon became a unitary authority in 1997, it was left inadequately prepared by the previous Government and never recovered from that bad start. Every day for the past eight years, the consequences of the failures have hurt people who depend on public services. Far from helping people, the council all too often made difficult and stressful situations worse. Today, however, there is clear evidence that the council is beginning to turn itself around. There are new management systems in place. It has capable new directors and a new, highly effective and capable chief executive.
	What has happened? National Government have intervened on the local authority. The Department for Education and Skills drove through changes to such an extent that, within two years, Ofsted found that the number of functions performed by the local education authority that were rated as satisfactory or better had increased from 30 per cent. to 85 per cent.
	Ministers and officials from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister have been working closely with the council to transform the delivery of services to residents and supporting it to do so. It has lent Swindon borough council one of its most capable officials, who has years of experience of local government and helping failing local authorities to turn themselves around. She has been working with the council over the past few months to introduce rigorous accounting systems and to ensure that, at last, it focuses on the recipients of services. The people of Swindon owe a debt of gratitude to Anne-Marie Carre and all the officials in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister who have done much to help them. Swindon has received extra financial resources from the Government. Not only has grant increased by 30 per cent. since 2001, but one-off additional funding has been provided such as 1 million to build extra capacity in the council, and there is also the possibility of a further 1 million.
	None of that would have been possible without the dedication and expertise of the previous Minister with responsibility for local government, my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford), whom we thank. It is reassuring that he has been succeeded by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East and Saddleworth (Mr. Woolas), who has already demonstrated his concern that Swindon stays on the right track.
	The recovery process has involved a partnership, and I pay tribute to both the ruling group and the Labour group on Swindon borough council for their willingness to embrace the improvement agenda constructively and to work co-operatively with the ODPM. A great deal remains to be done and the situation is by no means perfect, but the council is on the mend.
	The partnership that turned around the council has much to contribute to the debate about the division of powers in our democracy, about which we have already heard quite a lot today. When we hear fashionable talk about localism, the debate is always focused on the benefits of devolving power to the smallest possible political unit, and there are, of course, benefits to that approach. However, local can also mean limited and restricted, and localism can work against the equitable distribution of resources throughout the country, a subject about which we have heard a lot this afternoon. In the past, localism has also worked against a cohesive sense of national identity. Such fashionable talk does not contemplate the consequences when localism is not enough and local authorities fail, and it forgets that the least advantaged and the most vulnerable get hurt first and worst when local authorities fail in the same way as Swindon failed.
	In my view, the ODPM has helped to turn around the situation in Swindon. Perhaps the defenders of localism would argue that in time the people of Swindon would elect councillors who would turn around the council themselves without such intervention. However, real life does not work like that, and it did not work like that in Swindon. The people of Swindon elected new councillors who had the power and the money to make significant improvements, but, for whatever reason, they did not make them. The people of Swindon elected new representatives over and over again, but none of those representatives was any more able than their predecessors to make the necessary improvements.
	Central Government can be sclerotic, slow and clog up the delivery of public services, but central Government can also be good governmenta national Government working nationally and locally for the good. The fashionably derided system of targets and inspections quantified Swindon borough council's failures and provided an objective basis for the intervention that is turning round its performance. National Government provide the breadth and depth of expertise that is not always found in one local authority. Swindon's experience demonstrates the benefits of national Government.
	I hope that my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House will take my points to the ODPM, because we are very grateful for everything that it has done in Swindon. In partnership with the Labour group and the ruling group on Swindon borough council, the ODPM is about to make a difference for the people of Swindon.

Nigel Evans: I am grateful to hon. Members for cutting their speeches, and I will do likewise to ensure that my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Fulham (Mr. Hands) is able to participate.
	I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Mr. Vara) on his tremendous maiden speech. My maiden speech was rubbish. [Hon. Members: Hear, hear!] Yes; I know that that is hard to believe. At least this speech will be short, which will improve its quality, but I still wake up in a sweat thinking about my maiden speech.
	We are about to go into one of the longest summer recesses everI know whyand it would be useful if hon. Members were able to table written questions during that period. I would not expect the answers as quickly as when the House is sitting, but it would be useful.
	I want to discuss the reclassification of cannabis. My private Member's Bill, which sadly ran out of time in the previous Parliament, would have set up a commission to examine the reclassification of cannabis. I was told that that could not happen, but the Government have now set up their own inquiry because of the evidence on the long-term psychotic influence of cannabis. Dr. John Henry of St. Mary's hospital has said that just as cigarette smoking has ill effects on the body, so cannabis has similar effects on the mind.
	A huge amount of evidence has appeared from a number of quarters since the reclassification of cannabis, so it is right for the Government to re-examine the issue. I have been told that the commission may not report until December, although we had thought that it would do so in the summer. If the Minister can encourage the inquiry to make its recommendations soon, perhaps we can get cannabis put back into class B.
	When cannabis was reclassified, the message sent, particularly to young people, was wrong. Believe it or not, 42 per cent. of youngsters at school were offered controlled substances in 2003, 1 per cent. of under-11s have tried cannabis, and one third of people under 15 admit to having tried it, too. Clearly they were sent the wrong message. When the commission reportsand I hope that it will do so as I feel it oughtwe should be able to move swiftly to reclassifying cannabis and putting it back into class B.

Greg Hands: I want to talk about an issue that will have a catastrophic effect on my constituents and large parts of London, particularly west Londonthe westward extension of the congestion charge scheme. As hon. Members may know, the consultation ended on Friday 15 July, and we will probably hear the results during the summer recess. They may also know that in the first consultationas with most new Labour schemes, if the right answer does not emerge the first time, the same question is simply put again63 per cent. of residents and 72 per cent. of business opposed the westward extension.
	I believe that the extension of the zone will have an especially bad effect on Hammersmith and Fulham, for the following reasons. First, it will affect our local traffic; this may well happen elsewhere in London too. The north-south routes through our borough are few and poorly served, yet any examination of a map of London shows that almost all the displaced traffic will be sent north-south through Hammersmith and Fulham.
	The map shows that there will be a funnel effect if people are charged 8 a day to go through Kensington and Chelsea. Statistically, 100,000 to 120,000 cars a day go from Hammersmith and Fulham into Kensington and Chelsea. Our most congested roadsthe north-south routes, including the A219 Fulham Palace road and the Hammersmith gyratorynow take about one third of that traffic. Think about the impact of the displaced traffic on those already congested routes round key junctions such as the Hammersmith gyratory, and key hospitals such as Charing Cross hospital.
	It stands to reason that if people have to pay 8 to go over Battersea bridge, the Albert bridge, Chelsea bridge or Vauxhall bridge, they will probably try to avoid that and pop further up the river to cross Wandsworth or Putney bridge.
	For most of my constituents, it seems that it is no longer possible to be born in the constituency. Fulham's district general hospital is the Chelsea and Westminster, so for the first time a birth tax has been createdby Ken Livingstone and the Greater London authority. People will have to pay 8 to go there to give birth. Indeed, it is most unlikely that the fee will be 8; it is more likely to be an 80 penalty charge the next day, when people discover that they have forgotten to pay. There will also be a terrible effect on some of our local schools, and on businesses just outside the zone, such as Earls Court Olympia, Chelsea football club and the BBC in Shepherds Bush.
	It is hardly as if our public transport could take much more of those displaced journeys. The Wimbledon branch of the District line is already operating at 92 per cent. capacityone of the highest rates for any tube line in London. Tomorrow, the 14 and 22 bus routes will be downgraded from Routemasters to regular Volvo buses.
	The consultation has been a complete fiasco. Of the 14 questions put to residents, only onequestion No. 2asks their opinion on the congestion charge extension. The scheme deserves to be defeated, and I hope that the London Mayor will finally start listening to the Government, who should be putting pressure on him to listen to local residents and other stakeholders and reject the scheme.

Chris Grayling: I shall be brief, to allow the Minister the chance to respond to as many comments as possible.
	I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Mr. Vara), who made an eloquent speech. We envy him his constituency, which he described with great eloquence and which is clearly a wonderful place to represent. We admire his constituents, but perhaps we do not have the same sense of envy about the fact that he has three former Members of Parliament to deal with. I also admire him for his achievement in being the first Gujarati Member of this House. I hope very much that he will not be the last. My party is committed to increasing ethnic minority representation here, and we fielded more candidates than any other party at the general election from the ethnic minorities. Sadly, not enough of them were elected, but we will deal with that in future.
	The debate has been wide ranging but has shown how much commonality there is in the issues that we face in different constituencies. We heard about water supply issues in Somerton and Frome and the water supply issues created in Castle Point by development problems. We heard about unmanned railway stations in south-west London, specifically Lewisham, and in Sevenoaks. That is certainly something with which I can identify as I see the spread of antisocial behaviour in my own area. Members talked with pride of their constituencies: the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington, East (Mr. Kemp) spoke of the growth of Sunderland and the role that Nissan has played; Nissan is to be admired for what it has achieved in this country, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will remember that it was the last Conservative Government who brought Nissan here.
	We have heard about individual cases from my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess), whom I congratulate on the footballing successes that he described. We heard about individual issues from my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mr. Fraser), who talked about the great difficulty of the impact of debt on individuals, and from the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow), who talked about the shortcomings that we all know exist in the front line of the national health service.
	We heard about issues that affect probably every constituency, such as the pressures of development, not simply as described by my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink), but in the problems in west London to do with the future of Heathrow airport. We heard from the hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie) about the reverse of that problemareas that have housing stock available being perhaps excessively used for the dispersal of asylum seekers. We heard also about the problems being caused in back-land development from the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam, with which I can identify just down the road in my constituency. I share, too, the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Fulham (Mr. Hands) about the congestion charge. The Mayor of London should proceed with that change with great caution.
	We heard, too, about important national and international issues, including nuclear proliferation, on which it is essential for the whole world that matters are got right for the future. The points of my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) about cannabis were very well made.
	I am sure that the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) will not be surprised that I have saved her comments for last. I represent the other half of what I must emphasise is the Epsom and St. Heliernot the St. Helier and EpsomNHS trust. I do not envy any NHS employee faced with the task of hospital reconfiguration. They can never win, and they can never please everyone. The House will not be surprised to learn that I could set out in detail equal to the hon. Lady's the reasons why she is wrong, why Epsom has better transport links and how, if there is no accident and emergency department in Epsom, there will be 150,000 people in Surrey without an A and E department within five miles of their homes, while in the north of the area there are three other major acute hospitals close by.
	May I say to the Minister and the hon. Lady that the siting of the hospital in this project is, in many ways, not the key point? The key is whether the project is viable in the first place. I have two huge concerns that should be common to the hon. Lady, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam, myself and other affected Members. First, the national health service is putting forward a scheme that, by its own admission, replaces one unaffordable model of care with another. We have not yet been given evidence by the national health service that it is delivering a packagean expensive private finance initiative schemethat will not ultimately lead to cuts in community-based services as the NHS seeks to pay the mortgage.
	The other point is that we have yet to get a clear explanation of how the NHS can afford to reduce the number of acute beds in our area by one third. Until I hear answers to those two questions, I remain unpersuaded that this scheme is viable. I hope that in passing on comments from the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam, the Minister will bear my thoughts in mind as well.
	This has been a good and wide-ranging debate, and we look forward to hearing from the Minister. I wish all Members of the House and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, a very pleasant recess.

Nigel Griffiths: This has been a very well informed debate. I am pleased that hon. Members curtailed their comments to allow 18 Members to contribute. Of course, the debate was necessarily cut short by the sad death of Sir Edward Heath, but none the less many issues were raised, and I will try to deal with as many of them as I can.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Washington, East (Mr. Kemp) will welcome, as I do, the publication on Monday of the youth Green Paper. It is important that we applaud what young people do, as too often we are quick to criticise the tiny minority who need more care and attention. I will ensure that the Home Secretary is aware of his comments about Wearside Women in Need.
	The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) talked about a hospital in his area. If I was in his position, I would share his worry that, despite the vast increase in the capital budget and the dozens of new hospitals built and substantial hospital repairs that have taken place, his area has been left behind. I will ensure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health is aware of that. Equally, I will ensure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is aware of his points about water and the A303.
	My long-term friend and distinguished colleague, my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang), raised an issue that he has championed throughout his political life. I will ensure that my colleagues at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office take heed of his concerns and respond accordingly.
	The hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) raised several matters. I would say to him, in a spirit of good will, that I have the Hansard of the exchange with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, and I think that the hon. Gentleman may have done him a disservice, as I am not sure that he gave such a commitment. I know that the hon. Gentleman will look at that. I suggest that he write to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister about when the planning legislation review as regards Travellers is likely to be published, because that is a matter of concern for many Members on both sides of the House.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Jim Dowd) talked about an issue that was raised by the hon. Member for Sevenoaksthe lack of staffing in railway stations and the problems that that poses.
	The hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Mr. Vara) gave an excellent maiden speech, as others have said. His family must be very proud of him. I am sure that breast cancer and, in future, other causes have found an eloquent advocate.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, South and East Cleveland (Dr. Kumar) talked about newspaper distribution in supermarkets. I know that he has taken that up assiduously with my right hon. Friends at their respective Departments.
	The hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) gets the prize for raising the most issuessix or seven. I know that he will forgive me if I do not cover them all, but I am happy to ensure that he is written to. On the case of the Briton detained abroad, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, Foreign Office officials and the ambassador raise that at every conceivable opportunity, and they will note his comments.
	The hon. Gentleman raised other important matters such as the programme, Drunk and Dangerous, and questioned why local licensing committees are granting licenses in such circumstances. I share his concerns, as will the whole House. We give powers to local licensing committees and we expect them to take the advice of local police and other authorities. We want firm action to be taken because drunkenness is one of the most serious problems in society. There is no quick fix but it puts tremendous pressure on our health and other services.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) raised an issue about which there are clearly diverging views. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health will want to study those views and representations carefully. However, it is for the primary care trust to make a decision and weigh up the evidence. I know from my hon. Friend's reputation that she will have piled up the evidence and made a good case. I am sure that the shadow Leader of the House will also make a forceful case.
	The hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) raised an issue that several hon. Members mentioned: the threat to the green belt. He also referred to the plight of elderly patients in the health service and joined other hon. Members in praising almost all health service workers. Of course, the Government take seriously any concerns such as those that he highlighted. His comments on Cyprus represent his point of view. There are strong views on both sides of the argument.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) mentioned Heathrow. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie) referred to asylum. Clearly, those issues are important.
	If hon. Members will forgive me as we approach the last minute, I shall write to other hon. Members and ensure that their concerns are raised.
	I join my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West in praising the work of Iain Hepplewhite as a Department of Trade and Industry press officer, with whom I worked. He served both Governments well. Our thoughts are with him and his parents.
	It being two hours after the commencement of proceedings, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, pursuant to Order[19 July].

COMMITTEES

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With the leave of the House, I shall put motions 13, 14, 15 and 16 together.
	Ordered,

Finance and Services

That Mr John Randall be discharged from the Finance and Services Committee and Mr Eric Forth and Robert Key be added.

Welsh Affairs

That Hywel Williams be added to the Welsh Affairs Committee.

Public Accounts

That John Healey be added to the Committee of Public Accounts.

Environmental Audit

That Mr Elliot Morley be added to the Environmental Audit Committee.[Mr. Bob Ainsworth, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

PETITIONS
	  
	Oxford-Bicester Rail Services

Tony Baldry: I wish to present a petition on the Oxford-Bicester rail services, which is signed by some 500 of my constituents.
	The petition states:
	The petition of the people of Bicester and the surrounding areas
	Declares their opposition to the Strategic Rail Authority's announcement that the Oxford-Bicester rail service will have trains that will run only twice daily from 2006;
	That the Bicester area will double in size under Government housing plans but Bicester Town station will not have a train after 16.00;
	That that undermines the Government's proposal to develop sustainable communities, outlined by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister as,
	transport facilities, including public transport, that help people travel within and between communities and reduce dependence on cars,
	and community rail development, outlined by the Department for Transport as,
	putting local and rural railways on a sustainable basis for the long term, so that they can continue to offer a vital service for passengers and freight and contribute more to the local economy as well as meeting Government targets on accessibility, the environment and social inclusion;
	That before the general election, the Government were discussing an east-west rail link to connect Oxford to Milton Keynes by increasing services at Bicester and surrounding villages, only for the new franchise to move Bicester back rather than forward in terms of service levels.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Department for Transport to honour its clear commitment to sustainable communities and community rail development by reviewing the franchise and implementing a full timetable and range of facilities at Bicester Town station.
	And the Petitioners remain etc.
	To lie upon the Table.

Telecommunications Mast

David Amess: I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of a great number of local residents in Chalkwell ward who are very concerned about the health effects of telecommunications masts, particularly their link to causing brain tumours.
	The Petition of residents of Chalkwell Avenue, Westcliffe-on-Sea and others:
	Declare that the Petitioners oppose Application SOS/04/01758/TEL for the erection of a T-Mobile telecommunications mast at the junction of The Ridgeway and 93, Chalkwell Avenue. The Petitioners further declare that they are united in protest against the Application and that they will exercise all of their rights to that end.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Deputy Prime Minister to reject Application SOS/04/01758/TEL for the erection of a T-Mobile telecommunications mast at the junction of The Ridgeway and 93, Chalkwell Avenue.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	To lie upon the Table.

Langley Estate

Jim Dobbin: This petition is from the tenants and residents of the Langley estate in Middleton in my constituency, an estate that you will know well, Mr. Deputy Speaker, being a predecessor of mine. It used to be run as an overspill estate by Manchester city council, and it is now managed by the Bowlee Park housing association. The petition has been signed by more than 1,000 tenants and residents from the Langley estate.
	The estate is the subject of a 30 million investment by the Bowlee Park housing association and is a housing market renewal investment project. Environmental improvements including fencing and boundary walls have been started. However, there seems to be a shortfall in funding to enable completion to take place. This is a once-only opportunity to create a sustainable quality of life for the local residents and the petition seeks the support of the Government to enable this to happen.
	The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons legislate to ensure that local and central Government ensure that funds are in place to complete the project for all the properties in the area.
	And the petitioners remain, etc.
	To lie upon the Table.

Dunstable College

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.[Mr. Bob Ainsworth.]

Andrew Selous: It might be helpful to the House if I briefly outline some of the facts about Dunstable college. It started off training workers in the printing industry. It should now more properly be called South Bedfordshire college, because although it is based in Dunstable it serves all the residents of south Bedfordshire, and notably of Leighton Buzzard, the largest town in my constituency, where the college has a learning shop. A large number of courses are also run on the Kingsland campus in Houghton Regis and the college also functions on its main site in Dunstable. It is particularly important to note that many of the college's students travel considerable distances to get to it from places throughout south Bedfordshire and a long way into mid-Bedfordshire. All this means that the college's continued well-being is vital to the future of our area.
	I should like to run through a few statistics. The college reduced its adult provision in 200203, in agreement with Bedfordshire and Luton learning and skills council. Since then, it has met its targets every year and received support for its plans at every stage from the local LSC. College provision has been completely reviewed and the college has not asked to grow adult provision. It has replaced non-priority adult provision systematically to target priority areas.
	The college is also a sub-regional trade union studies centre. It has only 18 per cent. of its provision categorised as other, and it has grown its 16-to-19 numbers year on year from 200102. It has rebalanced its provision in the way in which the Government wanted it to do. The college has played the game and done exactly what the local LSC asked it to do, in accordance with the Government's agenda, over the past few years.
	The Minister's surname is Hope, and that is what the students of Dunstable college are looking for tonight, because I have to tell him that all is not well with the college. This year, out of the blue, its budget has been cut by 833,000. That figure is made up as follows: for 19-plus students, there will be a cut of 533,000; for additional learning support, a cut of 73,000; the ethnic minority student achievement grant will be cut by 33,000; the learner support fund will be cut by 22,000; work-based learning will have 150,000 taken off its budget; and the local intervention and development fund will have a 22,000 reduction. That adds up to a total cut of 833,000, which is a 10 per cent. cut in funding out of a total budget of some 8 million or so. That came as a complete surpriseas I have said, the local learning and skills council had fully backed the direction of the college at every stage since 2003.
	What do those cuts mean? The college will educate 1,000 fewer learners locally, 25 college staff are losing their jobsmost of which are full-timeand a further 15 staff have received at risk of redundancy notices. All of that is in an area in which the Government plan to add an extra 43,000 homes, as part of the Milton Keynes and south midlands sustainable communities plan, with which the Minister will be familiar from his previous incarnation as a Minister in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.
	Although Dunstable is particularly badly hit, it is not alone. As the Minister will know, there will be a cut of 200,000 adult education places across the country, including courses in basic skills to improve poor adult literacy and numeracy, which cost us some 10 billion a year nationally. The sector also faces some 4,000 to 5,000 redundancies. Dr. John Brennan, the Association of College' chief executive, a man not usually prone to strong language, has said that the Government are presiding over a funding shambles with 200607 to be worse stilla further disaster waiting to happen.
	How could this be avoided? The Government have set up the biggest quango in Europe in the form of the Learning and Skills Council, which has a budget of 330 million to administer adult education. The Further Education Funding Council used to do that job for a 15 million budget. With a growing budget, it should be possible to expand 16 to 19 provision, which the Government properly want to do, and which the Opposition recognise as a valid and important objective. That should be possible, however, without cutting adult provision. It should not be a case of either/or where the overall budget is growing.
	Nor is the Government's national approach sensitive to the differing needs of local communities, such as in my constituency of South-West Bedfordshire. Many older workers, from the BTR and Trico factories that have closed down recently in Dunstable, from the Lancer Boss and Courtaulds factories in Leighton Buzzard, or from the WOM International factory that closed down in Leighton Buzzard in the past couple of weeks, need to re-skill to get back into the workplace. The cuts in adult provision will make that very much more difficult.
	The Government say that colleges can make up those cuts to their budgets by collecting fees. That simply will not wash. Chris Vesey, the outstandingly good principal of Dunstable college, whom south Bedfordshire is very lucky to have, said in an e-mail to me on this point:
	Dunstable college has progressively increased fees to adult part time students over the last 2 years. We noticed a reduction in enrolments as a result and have closed what we would have called 'leisure courses' as non viable. These included watercolour painting, photography and flower arranging. These courses were replaced by plumbing, electrical installation and ESOL
	English as a second language. She continued:
	In an agreement with other Bedfordshire colleges we have introduced a fee of 120 per year for our 19 plus students on full time courses,
	with effect from September 2005,
	in addition to the materials fee that they already pay which varies from 25 to 120 depending on the course . . . The total that I could collect will not make much of an impression on the funding cut as it is a small amount compared to the actual costs of delivery.
	I therefore hope that the Minister will not say that the answer to the college's funding crisis is for it to raise more fees.
	The Government have increased funding for the sector, but have not always done so in a way that achieves the greatest value for money. I am sure that the Minister will come to realise, as just about everyone in the sector has, that unintended consequences are involved in the policy priorities on which he and his colleagues have embarked. I ask him to be as reasonable as he can, and consider whether those really were the intended consequences of the national policy that he set out. I sent questions to the Minister's private office in advance, and I should be grateful if he answered them.
	What work did the Department undertake, or what work is it undertaking, to keep FE staff who have been made redundant? We know that there is a shortage of FE staff nationally in key courses. Those people are a vital national asset. Is the Department really content for the national total of between 4,000 and 5,000, 25 of whom are at Dunstable college, to leave the education sector altogether? What work is being done to get them into the 16 to 18 sector on which the Government want to concentrate?
	Will the Minister tell me, please, what risk assessment was carried out to ensure that the FE sector was not seriously damaged by short notice major cuts in college priorities? It is worth pointing out that the LSC's letter sent to colleges in November 2004, followed up by a circular in January 2005, made it clear that the cuts would not happen. They are very recent news for colleges, and it is the shortness of the period within which they must adjust to the cuts that has caused such huge difficulties.
	Has the Department undertaken any research into the ability and willingness of employers and individuals to pay higher fees for their courses? I understand from correspondence with the Minister and his colleagues that the Department is arguing on those lines, butas I made clear in quoting the college principal's wordsthat is not an option for us in south Bedfordshire. Can the Department guarantee that all extra demand for 16 to 18-year-olds in colleges will be fully funded? Can it confirm that there will be a reduction in funding for apprenticeships for those who will be over 19 in 200506? That issue is particularly close to my heart.
	How was the process used to assure equity of access to 19-plus courses for those living in various parts of the country? I fear that there will be a lottery of provision across the country because of the uneven way in which the cuts are falling. Not all colleges are in the position of Dunstable college; some are fortunate enough to have received a budget increase this year. Finally, what process was used to consider whether 19-plus provision was in the priority areasspecialist, or of value to the local economic environment?
	I shall end my speech before my allocated time runs out, in the hope that the Minister may be generous enough to let me intervene on those specific points. There are many very worried staff at Dunstable college. Our area has taken some big knocks industrially over the years. We are the focus of Government attention in terms of massive housing growth and, as I said earlier, I believe that these are unintended consequences of the Minister's policy. I hope that this debate will provide an opportunity for the position to be reconsidered, so that we can give some hope back to the college.

Phil Hope: I congratulate the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) on securing such an important debate. I should like to do what he did. He put his concerns about Dunstable college in the wider context of Government policy, and I shall try to deal with the questions that he raised.
	I think we can all agree that in the 21st century it matters more than ever for education to be able to transform the lives of children and adults, whatever their background and wherever they live, and for the state to have a responsibility for providing and paying for high-quality initial education and training for young people. Most people would agree on that, and we are committed to providing it. That means providing a place in school or in college, or an apprenticeship, for every young person. For adults, the performance and success of the learning and skills sector is critical, because of its strong links with the economy and because of the Government's wider agenda. We need a strong economy if we are to make progress on the Government's health, welfare and social reform priorities.
	We want to ensure that suitable learning and training opportunities continue to be available to, and accessible to, individuals. As we set out in our skills White Paper, we want all adults to have the opportunity to develop a foundation of basic and work skills, so that they can become more employable and adaptable to the rapidly changing needs of the workplace. The Government recognise the huge importance of the post-16 education and skills sector in realising that ambition.

Andrew Selous: rose

Phil Hope: I will address the issues that the hon. Gentleman raised, but if he will forgive me I shall spend a few moments trying first to establish the context and background. I will give way shortly if I am not covering the issues quickly enough.
	So we are investing more money in the sector than ever before, and in 200506 it will receive no less than 10 billion. Investment in FE colleges has increased significantly. In the three years to 200506, total funding for the FE sector alone has risen by 1 billiona 25 per cent. cash increase. This year, seven out of 10 colleges will receive an above-inflation budget increase; indeed, almost half will receive an increase of more than 5 per cent. I shall deal with Dunstable college's situation in a moment.
	The 2005 Budget also included an additional 350 million-worth of capital investment for the period 200809 to 200910, in order to support the longer-term transformation of the FE estate. Over the next five years, Government capital investment in FE will total 1.5 billionup from nothing in 1997. I am pleased to say that our investment so far has paid off. Some 862,000 adults have achieved literacy, numeracy and language qualifications since 2001, surpassing the 2004 public service agreement target. Overall success rates have increased from 65 per cent. in 200102 to 71 per cent. in 200304. Some 670,000 more adults a year participate in FE than participated in 1997. So far, 21,000 employersand 164,000 employeeshave benefited from the employer training pilots, gaining the skills and qualifications that they need to improve their overall productivity and competitiveness.

Andrew Selous: rose

Phil Hope: Despite that, there is an issue that we have to address, but, first, I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Andrew Selous: For the 25 staff of Dunstable college sitting at home tonight, the global increases in the FE sector are very welcome, but the Minister will doubtless realise that what they want to know is why 833,000 has been taken from the college's budget.

Phil Hope: As I said, I want to give the general context before getting down to the specifics of Dunstable college.
	Despite these significant sums, the public purse cannot meet the demand for all learning. I am always pleased when Conservative Members of Parliament come to the House to ask for more money for their area. I find it slightly difficult to reconcile that with the platform on which they stood at the electionone that involved cutting public spending by 30 billion and abolishing the union learning representatives scheme, which provides many opportunities for people in the workplace to gain adult basic skills. I understand that the hon. Gentleman is standing up for his constituency and he is right to do so, but as I said, I have to reconcile that with the platform on which his party stood at the election.

Andrew Selous: I am slightly disappointed with the Minister's tone. I have not come here for party political knockabout. If he thinks back seriously to the election, he will remember that my party pledged to match every single penny that his party pledged to the education sector.

Phil Hope: Adjournment debates are not the time for party political knockabout, which is why I want to deal with the issues specific to Dunstable college. But it is worth reminding the House of the background to the situation with which we are now dealing.
	The Government cannot and should not fund all the skills investment needed to sustain a competitive economy. Public money is always finite and it must benefit those who need it most, even if that means that some will have to pay more toward the cost of their learning. However, we do not want to lose courses that people value and enjoy, so finding a new balance of responsibilities between the Governmentthe taxpayeremployers and individual learners is crucial. That will require cultural changes and, I have to say, a fundamental shift in expectations and practice about who pays for what.
	Only one in 10 colleges will have received an overall reduction to the budget, although for other colleges, the increases and allocations may not have been quite as high as expected or wanted. The Government and the Learning and Skills Council acknowledge that difficult decisions have to be made. There are many reasons why an individual college should find itself among the one in 10 with reduced budgets for 200506. Primarily, it is a combination of whether the focus lay outside Government priority areas in the past and historical underperformance.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about the timing and how much notice was given of the change that the sector is undergoing. Our skills strategy, published in 2003, set out our priorities. They were clearly repeated and published again by the LSC in December 2004 and repeated in January 2005. As a result, 16-to-18 learner numbers are expected to increase by 3 per cent.an additional 18,000 young people in further education next year. That is good news, because participation at the age of 17 at the moment puts us fifth from bottom of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development league table. We have a target to get that up to 90 per cent. over the next decadea big ambition that we will achieve only if we invest in 16-to-18 education. That also means that colleges with a significant focus on adult education are more likely to have received reduced allocations than those with higher numbers of 16 to 18-year-oldsall the more so where existing adult provision is not already aligned with Government priorities.
	In the case of Dunstable college, that combination of circumstances is exactly what has happened. In comparison with other colleges in the area, the college had a particularly low number of 16 to 18-year-old learners, while having a particularly large number of adult learners. That, together with factors linked to course mix for both age groups, resulted in the college's budget for 200506 being reduced by 150,000 in comparison with 200405a 2 per cent. reduction.
	I am aware that the local learning and skills council considered the impact that the funding allocations might have on certain institutions. Local offices reviewed those initial allocations and reallocated funds, where they believed either that priority provision could be better served or where a college would be unduly disadvantaged. As a result, Dunstable college received an additional 233,000 through that process. I might add that the college has historically experienced financial difficulties, which the learning and skills council has been working with the college to address. Financial support in the past has been considerable. In May 2003, the college received 1.8 million of exceptional support from the local LSC.
	I also understand that the current budget proposals that the hon. Gentleman has spoken about tonight are part of a wider review, which many colleges such as Dunstable are undertaking to look further into areas of financial viability and see how they can be made more efficient. I know, too, that there has been discussion between the college, the hon. Gentleman and the LSC about the perceived unfair treatment of both the college and the region in terms of adult budgets, but I am confident that the LSC has consistently applied the same funding criteria to all colleges in Bedfordshire and Lutonand, indeed, to those in the east of England. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that Bedfordshire has not been required to show a greater reduction in adult activity than other areas in the region. Any apparent variation between local offices is due to the differing ratios of 16 to18 adult activity and the extent of 16-to-18 growth.

Andrew Selous: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way generously again. The college has no quibble over the application of the formula by the Learning and Skills Council other than the fact that the Department directed it to do so. I have no doubt that the Government's own criteria were applied fairly, as instructed. The fact remains that that is pretty cold comfort to a college that has had an 833,000 cut in its budget, even though it did exactly what the LSC asked it to do all the way through from 2003, including significant growth in its 16-to-18 provision. I do not feel that the Minister has yet dealt with those issues.

Phil Hope: I do not want to remind the hon. Gentleman, but in 2003 the college received 1.8 million in exceptional funding to deal with the financial difficulties that it had experienced historically. When the formula operated and the priorities were applied, it was recognised that there would be an impact on the college. As a result, this year it received 233,000 more than the formula would have allocated to it. The overall reduction in the college's budget is 150,000, or 2 per cent. I accept that that is a reduction, but it shows that efforts have been made at a local level to understand the situation.

Andrew Selous: I appreciate that the Minister is a very busy man, responsible for every college in the country. I do not expect him to know the figures in detail, but I wonder whether the officials who have briefed him for this debate realise that the college faces a total net cut of 833,000. I do not see a recognition of that in the numbers that the Minister has quoted.

Phil Hope: This is a matter for discussion and negotiation at a local level with the LSCwhich the hon. Gentleman's party would have abolished, of course. The figures that I have given were provided by the LSC, and they show the college's real position. The college and the LSC have made real and positive efforts to ameliorate the college's difficulties in this matter.
	I have emphasised that the Government do not want courses that people value to close, whether they are used by individuals or employers. It is right that the Government should focus resources, and that is why our funding contribution to the basic cost of courses outside the priority areas has been reduced. The amount that the taxpayer provides for those courses has been cut from 75 per cent. of the costs to 72.5 per cent. The changes in funding are not merely technical matters; they are the first step in a necessary change of culture and expectations, in which the value of learning, and the benefits that it brings to learners and employers, is properly recognised as a worthwhile and necessary investment.
	Colleges around the country have chosen to waive more than 100 million, at their own discretion, so that they can offer free or reduced-cost provision. I understand that Dunstable college's uncollected fees amounted to around 500,000 in 200304. Some colleges face a transitional period in this respect, but others are managing well. For example, I understand that nearby Barnfield college generates nearly 1.5 million a year from frees.
	I recognise that waiving fees may help raise participation, but in time a decision not to collect potential income must impact on both quality and financial stability. There is therefore a strong case that those fees must be collected. We recognise that colleges need support in that, and we are committed to working with the sector to that end. For example, we have a good practice guide on fee income to assist colleges to collect fees.
	Earlier, the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire quoted the AOC. I should like to refer to a briefing from the National Institute for Adult and Continuing Education. The briefing stated:
	NIACE is not against higher fees for those who can afford them. We believe that a high-fee, high-volume adult learning market, with generous concessions for the poor as of right, will result in more and different opportunities for adult learners than lower volumes in a low-fee economy. We believe that colleges which, in the past, have waived fees because there was little incentive to change, should begin a migration towards the sort of levels found in many local authority adult education services.
	That shows that there is support for the transition outside the Government.

Andrew Selous: Again, I am most grateful to the Minister for giving way. I want to press him again specifically on fees. Is he seriously saying that he believes that Dunstable college can raise an extra 500,000 in fees from its current student population? I am assured by the principal that that is not possible.

Phil Hope: I was pointing out that this is a matter for the college, the principal, the governing body, the LSC and the hon. Gentleman, as the local the Member of Parliament, to discuss and debate. If a college chooses not to collect fees, that choice has consequences. I understand that colleges make those choices, but they must live with those consequences. Other colleges charge and collect fees, rather than choosing to waive them, and therefore have that income at their disposal.
	I want to try to deal with one or two of the hon. Gentleman's other questions before we close, as time is now very short. I think that one of his questions was about demand for 16 to 19-year-olds being fully funded. The Learning and Skills Act 2000 provides the guarantee that all 16 to 18-year-olds have an entitlement to education or training. So we have ensured that places are available in school sixth forms, at further education or sixth form colleges, or on apprenticeships as a top priority, and that the funding to do so has been made available to the LSC.
	The LSC has been equally clear in its guidance to local LSCs that funding for young people is a priority and that budgets should reflect that. The reality is that most colleges receive significant increases in their 16-to-18 budgets. An extra 10.3 per cent. or 240 million has been provided nationally for that group of learners. I realise that time has caught up with us and that I will not able to answer all the questions that the hon. Gentleman asked
	The motion having been made after Seven o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. Deputy Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
	Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes past Eight o'clock.

Deferred Division

Access to Justice

That the Revised Funding Code prepared by the Legal Services Commission, a copy of which was laid before this House on 27 June, be approved.
	The House divided: Ayes 224, Noes 184.

Question accordingly agreed to.